state government news - march 2003 - complete issue (2 mb)

March 2003

WIND ENERGY GROWS STATE BUSINESS COURTS AGROTERRORISM

www.coveringkids.orgA national program of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Because now they are enrolled in SCHIP and Medicaid programs. So they’re covered for the doctor visits and prescriptions they need.But 8.5 million kids still have no health insurance, thoughmost are eligible for coverage. Let’s get them enrolled, too.

Strong SCHIP and Medicaid programs keep kids healthy.

“It is one of the happy incidents of theFederal System that a single, courageousstate may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experimentation without riskto the rest of the country.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

The Innovations Awards Program is the only comprehensive, national awards program that focuses exclusively on state programs and policiesand selects winners based on evaluations by state government leaders.

For more details or to obtain an application,please visit the Innovations Awards Program on the Web atwww.csg.org or contact James Carroll, [email protected] or (859) 244-8257.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: April 11, 2003

Now Accepting Applications for The Council of State Governments’

2003 Innovations Awards Program

4 state government news march 2003

featuresfeatures

senior editorJack Penchoff

associate editorLaurie Clewett

graphic design coordinatorSusie Bush

contributorsJames Carroll • Keon Chi

Chad S. Foster • Ed JanairoKaren Marshall • Trudi Matthews

Magdalena Mook • John MountjoyJenny Sewell • Allison Spurrier

Bill Voit • Chris WhatleyLaura Williams • Susan Saylor Yeary

proofreaderNancy J.Vickers

reprint permissionsSusan Haney

(859) 244-8235advertising and publication sales

(800) [email protected]

fax(859) 244-8001

[email protected]

internetwww.csg.org

on the coverPopulation growth, increased industrialization

and agricultural water demands are enflaming tensions between states

and setting the stage for the next round of water wars.

Cover by Lisa Eads

courts

The business bench 8Business courts emerge as trend in the states.

by Jack Penchoff

homeland security

Agroterrorism:Are states prepared? 11Report finds gap in states’ preparedness.

by Jeff Greco

energy

States fuel wind power 13Lower costs, state tax incentives spur wind energy’s growth.

by Barry Hopkins

environmentenvironment

page 19

page 25

March 2003

page 23

environment

Mercury in the spotlight 16Policy-makers face complex issues when it comes to addressing mercury in the environment.

by Jane Luxton and Anne K.Walsh

state trends

Water wars 19Increasing water demand enflames tensions between states.

by Scott Richards and Carolyn Orr

environment

Restoring the Chesapeake Bay 23Lessons learned in clean up could aid other environmental management efforts.

by Ann Pesiri Swanson

environment

Wisconsin tackles water pollution 25Groundbreaking legislation offers model for dealing with nonpoint source pollution.

by Jeff Greco

environment

Reduced toxicity is clearinghouse’s goal 27TPCH aids states and industry in reducing toxins in packaging.

by Sandy Vasenda

the council of state governments 5

headquarters2760 Research Park Drive

P.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910

(859) 244-8000

washingtonJim Brown, General Counsel

and DirectorHall of the States

444 N. Capitol St. N.W., Suite 401Washington, DC 20001

(202) 624-5460

easternAlan V. Sokolow, Director14 Wall Street, 20th Floor

New York, NY 10005(212) 912-0128

midwesternMichael H. McCabe, Director

641 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 401Lombard, IL 60148

(630) 810-0210

southernColleen Cousineau, Director3355 Lenox Road, Suite 1050

Atlanta, GA 30326(404) 266-1271

westernKent Briggs, Director

1107 9th Street, Suite 650Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 553-4423

council officesDaniel M. Sprague, Executive Director

Executive Committee

PresidentGov. Mike Huckabee, Ark.

ChairRep. Dan Bosley, Mass.

President-ElectGov. Frank Murkowski, Alaska

Chair-ElectSen. John Hottinger, Minn.

Vice PresidentGov. Ruth Ann Minner, Del.

Vice ChairAssemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Nev.

2002 executive committeeSen. David Adkins, Kan. • Sen. Richard Alarcon, Calif. • Sen.Manny M. Aragon, N.M. • Mr. Karl Aro, Executive Director,Department of Legislative Services, Md. • Sen. Rich Bagger, N.J.• Chief Justice Robert Bell, Md. • Treasurer Marshall Bennett,Miss. • Mr. Carl Bianchi, Director, Legislative Services, Idaho •Sen. Pam Brown, Neb.• Sen. Brenda Burns, Ariz.• AttorneyGeneral Steve Carter, Ind. • Sen. Steve Cohen,Tenn.• Rep.TerryColeman, Ga. • Rep .John Connors, Iowa • Rep.Toni Crosby,N.H.• Rep. Carol Donovan, Mass.• Gov. Jim Douglas,Vt. •Treasurer Dan Ebersole, Ga. • Judge Susan Ehrlich, Ariz.• Sen.Hugh Farley, N.Y. • Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty, R.I. • Speaker TimFord, Miss.• Sen. Karen Fraser,Wash. • Rep. Joe Green, Alaska •Rep. Joe Hackney, N.C.• Sen. President John Hainkel, La.• Sen.Toni Nathaniel Harp, Conn. • Sen. Douglas Henry,Tenn.• Sen.Lyle Hillyard, Utah • Gov. Bob Holden, Mo. • Mr. Lamar Holland,Assistant Director, Ga. State Finance & Investment Companies •Rep. Deborah Hudson, Del. • Judge Robert Hunter, N.C.• Gov.Mike Johanns, Neb. • Rep. Douglas Jones, Idaho • Ms. LiliaJudson, Executive Director, Division of State CourtAdministration, Ind. • Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, Idaho • Ms.Elisabeth Kersten, Director, Senate Office of Research, Calif. •Member Robert Kieffer, Quebec National Assembly • Sen. SueLandske, Ind.• Gov. Mike Leavitt, Utah • Mr. Edward Lurie,Director, Senate Research, N.Y. • Sen. Carl Marcellino, N.Y. •Sen. John J. Marchi, N.Y. • Gov. Judy Martz, Mont. • Sen. KennethMcClintock, Puerto Rico • Senate President Thomas V. “Mike”Miller, Jr., Md. • Sen. Angela Monson, Okla. • Attorney GeneralMike Moore, Miss. • Sen. Stephen Morris, Kan. • Sen. DavidNething, N.D. • Mr. John Olsrud, Director, Legislative Services,N.D. • Gov. George Pataki, N.Y. • Gov. Paul E. Patton, Ky. •Secretary of State Sharon Priest, Ark. • Mr. Virgil Puskarich,Executive Director, Local Government Commission, Pa. • Sen.Pam Redfield, Neb. • Ms. Mary Regel, Administrator, Div. ofInternational Development,Wis. • Sen. Claire Robling, Minn. •Rep. Roger Roy, Del. • Sen. Steve Saland, N.Y. • Sen. DiAnnaSchimek, Neb. • Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, N.Y. •Assemblyman Robert Straniere, N.Y. • Sen. Robert Thompson,Pa. • Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, Kan. • SenatePresident Earl Ray Tomblin,W.Va. • Rep. Joe Toomy, La. • Sen.Donne Trotter, Ill. • Sen. Rich Wardner, N.D. • Ms. Kathy Waters,Division Director, Arizona Supreme Court • Mr. Jeff Wells,Secretary, Dept. of Labor and Employment, Colo. • Sen. JeffWentworth,Texas • Mr. Glen Woodbury, Director, EmergencyManagement Division,Wash.

STATE GOVERNMENT NEWS, ISSN 0039-0119, March2003,Vol. 46, No. 3 — Published monthly with combined issuesin June/July and Nov./Dec. by The Council of StateGovernments, 2760 Research Park Drive, Lexington, KY 40511-8410. Opinions expressed in this magazine do not necessarilyreflect the policies of The Council of State Governments northe views of the editorial staff. Readers’ comments are wel-come. Subscription rates — In the U.S., $45 per year. Singleissues are available at $6 per copy. POSTMASTER: Sendaddress changes to State Government News, SalesDepartment, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910.

Advertising — Black and white, two-color and full-coloradvertising available. For complete circulation and advertisinginformation, contact the advertising department at (800) 800-1910. Mailing lists are available for rent upon approval of a sam-ple mailing.

Copyright 2003 by The Council of State Governments.Periodicals postage paid at Lexington, Ky., and at additional mail-ing offices.

departmentsdepartments

environment

Center for Environmental Innovation 28CSG launches center to promote innovative environmental management.

by Yvette R. Hurt


Inside story 6Pollution control evolves.

by Jack Penchoff

Letters to the editor 7Additions to elected officials guide.

Perspective 30Administrative rules oversight.

by Rep. Kim Koppelman

Perspective 32States’ role in corporate governance.

by William “Bill” Ide

Excellence in action 34Activities and events by CSG, its affiliates and other associations are highlighted.

Conference calendar 38Meetings and conference activities of CSG, affiliates and other associations are listed.


inside story

he president announced that “a coordinated attack” wasneeded because “the present government structures ... often

defies effective and concerted action.”Sounds like President Bush rallying the nation behind his war

on terrorism.But the president calling for that “coordinated attack” was

Richard M. Nixon during his message to Congress in 1970 announc-ing the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.

As President Bush did in creating the Department of HomelandSecurity by tapping into other federal agencies, Nixon reachedinto a half-dozen federal departments and pulled out more than a

dozen bureaus and agencies to estab-lish the EPA.

Similarly, both presidents viewedthe states as important parts of theiroverall mission.

“The EPA would be able – in concertwith the States – to set and enforcestandards for air and water quality andfor individual pollutants,” Nixon said33 years ago.

Neither president initially wantedto set up a separate governmentagency to deal with the respective bat-tles they were waging.

In his message to Congress, Nixon admitted as much.“In proposing that the Environmental Protection Agency be set

up as separate agency, I am making an exception to one of myown principles: that, as a matter of effective and orderly admin-istration, additional new independent agencies normally should

not be created.”But arguments for a single agency

were compelling, Nixon told Con-gress. “Because environmental protec-tion cuts across so many jurisdictions,and because arresting environmentaldeterioration is of great importance tothe quality of life in our county and theworld, I believe that in this case astrong, independent agency is needed.”

Since the EPA was created, environ-mental protection issues have grownmore complex as the emphasis has

shifted from pollution control to pollution prevention.This month, State Government News highlights some of those

efforts to go beyond control and prevent environmental pollution.One of the lessons learned from the successful clean-up effort ofthe Chesapeake Bay, for example, is that states should choose pre-vention before restoration or mitigation in large-scale environ-mental management efforts.

That’s just one of a dozen lessons outlined in an article by Ann

Pesiri Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake BayCommission.

Prevention was also the idea behind Wisconsin’s new regula-tions against nonpoint source pollution. Under the standards,established last year, developers andfarmers had to reduce sediment andpollutants on their land by 80 percentbefore March of this year, writes JeffGreco, a former policy analyst atThe Council of State GovernmentsMidwestern office.

But there aren’t simple solutions topollution prevention. There have beenstrides in reducing mercury emissions,write Jane Luxton and Anne Walsh,two Washington lawyers who specializein environmental regulation. But tocompound an already complex issue,research shows that 40 percent or more of the mercury deposited inthe United States comes from outside our borders.

The Council of State Governmentsis working with partnerships betweenstates and industry to address some ofthese complex environmental issues.Sandy Vasenda, an environmentalpolicy analyst with CSG, writesabout the Toxics in PackagingClearinghouse, which provides centraladministration for states with Toxicsin Packaging laws while providingadvice and consistent interpretation ofthe regulations for industry.

And CSG has launched an initiativethat will consider new tools, programs

and partnerships aimed at improving the way we manage and pro-tect the environment. Yvette Hurt, an environmental analyst forCSG, is coordinator of the new effort.

This month, State Government News also reports on the WaterWars between states with growing populations and diminishingwater supplies. Scott Richards, CSG’s chief environmental policy analyst, and Carolyn Orr, lead agriculture and ruralpolicy analyst, report that increased industrialization, shiftingdemographics and drought conditions are enflaming tensions.

One resource that remains in good supply is the wind. Tax cred-its and other incentives are boosting wind as an energy source,writes Barry Hopkins, CSG’s chief infrastructure policy ana-lyst. Projections are that wind will be producing more than 6 per-cent of the nation’s energy by 2020.

—Jack Penchoff is senior editor at State Government News.

Pollution control evolvesBY JACK PENCHOFF

Scott Richards

Yvette Hurt

Jack Penchoff

Barry Hopkins

TT


he decision by a veteran Minnesotalegislator’s intern to run against his

boss, while still working for her, raisedethical questions from the campus of theUniversity of Minnesota to the pages ofThe New York Times’ Sunday magazine.

Minnesota Rep. Phyllis Kahn doesn’tusually use an intern during legis-lative sessions.

“They’re more trouble than they areworth,” said Kahn, who has served in theMinnesota House for 30 years.

But in 2002, Kahn took on staff

University of Minnesota student JasonSamuels, who Kahn described as a“self-starter.”

Kahn said she was aware that Samuels,who was the president of the campusNational Organization for the Reform ofMarijuana Laws chapter, believed that thedecriminalization of marijuana was themajor public policy issue confrontingMinnesota.

“I probably represent the most liberaldistrict in the state. The university is in

Continued on page 15

An intern’s wrong moveBY JACK PENCHOFF

Minnesota Rep. Phyllis Kahn

letters

TT

To the editor:Inclusion of state treasurers in the State

Government News listing of 2003 StateExecutive Officials [January 2003 issue]was appreciated; however, there are sev-eral corrections and additions to the listthat would make it a more comprehen-sive guide for those wanting informationabout the office of state treasurer.

The chart indicates that the Minnesotaoffice of the treasurer is to be eliminatedin 2003.That office has not been eliminat-

ed, but rather has been merged with theoffice of the state auditor.Also, below arecorrections or additions to the originallisting of 2003 state treasurers: GeorginaK. Kawamura (Hawaii); Dale McCormick(Maine); Nancy Kopp (Maryland); JayRising (Michigan); Dan McElroy (Minn-esota); Scott Darkenwald (Montana);MikeAblowich (New Hampshire); John E.McCormack (New Jersey); Aida Brewer(New York); Jody Wagner (Virginia); andYasela Pereira (Guam).

State treasurers are the trustees of thepublic purse and it is with those taxpayerfunds that the nation’s state treasurersmanage the money used to operate stategovernments and provide state services.It is with pride and the highest of ethicaland professional standards that we servein the interest of our states’ citizenry.

Hon. Brian K. KrolickiTreasurer, State of Nevada

President, National Association ofState Treasurers

Additions for elected officials guide

The guide to elected state officials inthe January edition of State GovernmentNews did not include elected auditors andcontrollers.

Nevada State Controller Kathy Aug-ustine forwarded a list of those officials.

Augustine also pointed out a couple oferrors in the list of treasurers that ran inJanuary. In Florida, the offices of treasurerand comptroller have been combined intoone position, chief financial officer.

Also, in Texas the office of treasurerhas been abolished. Carole KeetonStrayhorn, listed as treasurer in the SGNlist, is the comptroller.

The guide to elected officials would

have been more comprehensive if it included elected state auditors and con-trollers. The following 33 officials areelected auditors and controllers as ofJanuary 2003:• Alabama – State Auditor Beth Chapman• Arkansas – Auditor of State Jim Wood• California – State Controller Steve Westly• Connecticut – Comptroller Nancy Wyman• Delaware – Auditor of Accounts Thomas Wagner Jr.• Idaho – State Controller Keith Johnson• Illinois – State Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes• Indiana – Auditor of State Connie Nass• Iowa – Auditor of State Dave Vaudt• Kentucky – Auditor of Public Accounts Edward

B. Hatchett Jr.• Maryland – Comptroller of the Treasury Donald

W. Schaefer• Massachusetts – Auditor of the Commonwealth

Joseph DeNucci

• Minnesota – State Auditor Pat Awada• Mississippi – State Auditor Phil Bryant• Missouri – State Auditor Claire McCaskill• Montana – State Auditor John Morrison• Nebraska – Auditor of Public Accounts Kate Witek• Nevada – State Controller Kathy Augustine• New Mexico – State Auditor Domingo Martinez• New York – Comptroller Alan Hevesi• North Carolina – State Auditor Ralph Campbell Jr.• North Dakota – State Auditor Robert Peterson• Ohio – Auditor of State Betty Montgomery• Oklahoma – State Auditor and Inspector Jeff McMahan• Pennsylvania – Auditor General Robert P. Casey Jr.• South Carolina – Comptroller General Richard

Eckstrom• South Dakota – State Auditor Rich Sattgast• Texas – Comptroller of Public Accounts Carole

Keeton Strayhorn• Utah – State Auditor Auston G. Johnson• Vermont – Auditor of Accounts Elizabeth Ready• Washington – State Auditor Brian Sonntag• West Virginia – State Auditor Glen B. Gainer• Wyoming – State Auditor Max Maxfield

Letters to the editor

Elected auditors and controllers


courtscourts

n a growing number of states, the judi-ciary and legislators are taking different

paths toward the same destination: theadoption of specialized business courts.

When the Maryland General Assem-bly established a task force to study thepossibility of establishing business andtechnology courts in the state’s circuitcourt system, Judge Steven I. Platt envi-sioned a report entitled “Many DifferentWorlds Collide.”

But the task force members surprisedeven themselves by reaching a consensuson the measures needed to reach the goalof improving the treatment of commer-cial litigation in state courts.

Now, says Platt, he calls the results ofthe task force’s deliberations, “Our Div-erse Universes Coalesce.”

This year, Maryland joins a growingnumber of states where courts have adopt-ed a strategy for streamlining complexcommercial litigation. Since 1995, 11states have adopted a form of businesscourts and seven others are considering it.

In most states the judiciary and legisla-tive branches are approaching the issuefrom different sides, but their goals are thesame: treating business and technologycases in an efficient and effective manner.

While the judiciary sees business courtsas an improvement to the court system, leg-islators also view them as a way to eitherlure or keep businesses in their states.

“Our position is that the judiciaryshould do everything it can to ensure thatall types of disputes are economically,efficiently and fairly resolved,” saysPlatt, who is in charge of implementingMaryland’s business court system. “The

judiciary can’t be a marketing tool foreconomic development.”

But he acknowledges that if businesscourts succeed in resolving disputes fairlyand efficiently, “it cannot hurt to advertise,but we should not do it for that purpose.”

Maryland Delegate Anthony Brown, alawyer, a task force member and vice chairof the House of Delegate’s judiciary com-mittee, agrees.

“Presumably, the business courts willprovide efficient and effective adjudica-tions of complex business and technologyclaims in Maryland,” says Brown. “The

Legislature wants Maryland to be per-ceived as a place where business and hightech companies want to do business. Andlitigation is a very expensive cost of doingbusiness.”

Delaware the first

Although Delaware has settled com-mercial disputes for more than 200 yearsthrough its Chancery Courts, specializa-tion didn’t really take hold until 1995when New York state established a com-mercial division.

II

States are establishing business courts to streamlinelitigation and lure new companies

BY JACK PENCHOFF

The business bench

in New York County (Manhattan),reported that the commercial divisionhad reduced by 36 percent the averagetime to dispose of cases, trimming downthe average time a case spends on thedocket from 648 days to 412.

A lot of that success, says Haig, can beattributed to mediation. About 60 percentof all cases handled in the CommercialDivision are resolved by a volunteermediator from a roster of 300 lawyerswho specialize in commercial law.

“There is an emerging trend in the creation of business courts,” says Haig, cit-ing the number of states that have adoptedbusiness courts in the past eight years.

But business courts aren’t for everyjurisdiction, says Haig. “If there aren’t alarge number of businesses in the area, itdoesn’t make sense.”

According to William Clark Jr., a part-ner in the Philadelphia law firm ofDrinker, Biddle & Reath, business courtsexist in four of the five largest metropol-itan areas of the country. “Only Houstondoesn’t have a business court,” saysClark, a former member of the AmericanBar Association’s Business Law SectionCommittee on Business Courts. Businesscourts are located in New York, Chicago,Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

Business courts criticized

Although successful where they are in place, business courts have hadtheir critics.

The courts have been called “elitist”with a pro-business bias.

To circumvent those arguments,California and Connecticut have broad-ened the specialization of courts toinclude complex civil litigation.Complex litigation courts not only dealwith business disputes, but also with tortmatters such as product liability and classaction cases.

“Business courts are viewed by manyas assisting only the business communi-ty; complex litigation departments han-dle complex cases affecting all aspects ofsociety,” according to a report by theCalifornia Judicial Complex LitigationTask Force.

In Michigan, the state bar’s BusinessCourt Ad Hoc Committee sees the elitismissue differently.

“Jurisdictions that have been success-ful in establishing business courts haveemphasized that business court judgesare not better than judges who handleother kinds of cases; they are merelyfocused on business issues,” according tothe Michigan bar’s business court com-mittee report released in June 2002.

The committee found that businesscourts free other judges from the timedemands and paperwork involved withbusiness litigation.

Diane L. Akers, with the Detroit lawfirm Bodman, Longley & Dahling, chairsMichigan’s business court committee.


courtscourts

Robert L. Haig, a commerciallawyer in New York City, was the drivingforce behind New York’s efforts to estab-lish specialized business courts.

Haig, a partner with the Kelley Dryefirm, says there was dissatisfaction in thelegal community with the ability of statecourts to handle complex business disputes.

Since 1995 that perception haschanged. “We can show demonstrablyand statistically that our commercialcourts are more efficient for businessesand that they solve problems,” says Haig.

In 1998, the chief administrative judge

Maryland Delegate Anthony Brown

Maryland Judge Steven I. Platt

areas such as medical and legal malprac-tice, and products liability as it hasalready done in the area of capital litiga-tion and family law,” he says.

Multibranch cooperation

Maryland’s implementation of a busi-ness court required sensitivity by all parties to the goals each branch of gov-ernment hoped to accomplish through thespecialized court.

“When the task force initially con-vened I was not at all sure that its mem-bers, with the interests that they soughtto represent and the very differentworlds that the members came from,would not find themselves irreconcil-ably at odds at the end of the process,”says Platt.The task force showed the judiciary’swillingness to work with the two otherbranches of government, says Platt,“while at the same time resisting anyeffort by other branches of governmentto dictate the internal operations of ourindependent branch of government.”

Brown says many on the task forceshared Platt’s initial skepticism. Theconsensus reached by the group, saysBrown, shows that the Legislature andjudiciary can cooperate. “It was a greatexample of two branches of governmentcoming together.”

— Jack Penchoff is senior editor of StateGovernment News.


courtscourts

She says critics fear that the best judgeswill be used in business courts, an argu-ment with which she disagrees.

“We don’t want the best judges in busi-ness courts, we want judges who likebusiness issues and have a desire andwillingness to wade through financialrecords,” says Akers.

Haig agrees, saying that the tempera-ment of a judge is important for successfulbusiness courts. “In business courts thereare a lot of motions. Some judges hate thatkind of thing. Good business court judgeslove that kind of detail work.”

And establishing a business court doesn’tnecessarily require more funds.

The chief judge in most jurisdictionsassigns judges to business courts; reallocat-ing existing resources, say Haig and Akers.

Specialization trend

While the legal community sees busi-ness courts as a trend, some see it as partof a larger trend toward the specializationof courts.

Philadelphia lawyer Mitchell Bach, apartner in Fineman & Bach, and a mem-ber of the ABA’s Business Law SectionCommittee on Business Courts, says spe-cialized courts have existed for years onthe federal level.

“Although it has been less common tofind separate courts of specialized juris-

diction at the state trial court level, spe-cialization has occurred through theestablishment of distinct divisions, suchas criminal divisions, probate divisionsand family or juvenile divisions,” saysBach. “While the legal profession itselfhas become more and more specialized inrecent decades, the judiciary in mostjurisdictions has lagged behind.”

Maryland’s Judge Platt agrees, and hebelieves there should be more specializa-tion of judges because the need will growbeyond business and technology cases.

“It can and inevitably will follow into

Following a Justice Roundtable convened by the National Center for StateCourts on Nov. 16, 1999, the NCSC developed the following best practicesfor case management in business and complex litigation courts:

• Single assignment. One judge is assigned to the case from filingthrough final disposition, including trial proceedings.

• Early and active judicial involvement.The judge takes a direct andactive role in the management of the case.

• Early application of alternative dispute resolution techniques.ADR techniques are employed as soon as possible after both partiesknow the primary claims and before both parties have spent consider-able time, expense and effort in discovery.

• Appropriate technology. The judge utilizes technology, such as elec-tronic filing and Internet technology to support case management.

Best practices

Have some sort of business courtConsidering establishing a business court

Business Court States


homeland securityhomeland security

iological terrorism is no longer anexotic, unfamiliar phenomenon. In

the last year and a half, U.S. officialshave discovered biological weaponsfacilities in Afghanistan, confronted awave of anthrax attacks in this country,and faced the possibility of biologicalweapon use in Iraq and elsewhere.

Although the threat that biological andchemical weapons pose to the U.S. agri-culture industry continues to receive lessattention and fewer resources from stateand federal policy-makers than otherthreats, the nation’s agricultural sectorremains vulnerable to a variety of terrorscenarios that could inflict casualties andsevere economic damage.

A recent report by the MidwesternLegislative Conference’s AgricultureCommittee tracks the progress Midwest-ern states have made in addressing theagroterror threat, examines gaps in pre-paredness and offers ideas for futurestate actions.

Lack of funds limits efforts

States’ ability to effectively prevent andrespond to agricultural terrorism is limitedby key concerns, such as poor plant securi-ty, inadequate disease-reporting systemsand untested emergency response plans,said Iowa Sen. Jack Kibbie.

“Cost is the main problem,” said

Kibbie, who serves as co-chair of theMLC Agriculture Committee withMichigan Rep. Larry Julian. “We’ve hadlots of discussion in the Legislature aboutthe issue, as agriculture is certainly anarea of great concern in a farm state likeIowa, but it’s been hard to find the fundsfor critical needs.”

While budget constraints have limitedstate responses to the agroterror threat,many states have used scarce resourcesand federal grant money to introduceinnovative reforms. Illinois and North

Dakota sponsor classes and seminars led by state personnel or private sector security experts to educate agriculturalproducers. Ohio and Minnesota makesecurity checklists available on theInternet and, in a strategy now commonin many states, are working directly withlocal media to provide producers securi-ty-related information.

Representatives from Iowa’s Depart-ment of Agriculture disseminate informa-tion directly to farmers attending the statefair and other agricultural events. While

A recent report by theMidwestern LegislativeConference examinesprogress and gaps inagroterror preparedness

BY JEFF GRECO

BB

Agroterrorism: Arestates prepared?

Many states lack capacity to respond to potential animal disease outbreaks.


no strategy will reach everyone, manyMidwestern states have dramaticallyraised awareness of agroterrorism withoutstraining their budgets.

As states search for low-cost ways toaddress the threat, many are examininglegal reforms that deter terrorists, stream-line response efforts and consolidate over-sight authority. Many states have found, forexample, that their penal codes eitherignored acts of agricultural terrorism alto-gether or prescribed punishments toolenient to serve as an effective deterrent.

Over the past two years, Indiana andIowa have defined agroterrorism more pre-cisely and reclassified the misdemeanor aseither a Class C or Class D felony. Mich-igan and Indiana, among other Midwesternstates, have criminalized lethal threats, andWisconsin and Iowa are among severalstates that have revised their civil codes toallow agroterror victims to sue offenders orthe groups they represent.

Minnesota and South Dakota haveadopted laws that broaden the governor’spowers to quarantine facilities and com-mand state resources and personnel – emer-gency responses that could be instrumentalin limiting the extent of damage caused byan agroterror attack on livestock or crops.And most states have established new linesof communication between state and localemergency management teams, expandingtheir responsibilities and defining their rolein responding to an actual emergency.

All of these efforts demonstrate anunmistakable commitment by many statelegislatures to address a threat that fewperceived even a few years ago. Still, thereport makes clear that a lack of fundinghampers efforts to prevent and respond toagroterrorism, and most states are still notwell equipped to meet the threat.

Diagnosing, treating diseases

One critical deficiency limiting moststates’ response efforts is a lack of qualifiedpersonnel to diagnose and treat animal dis-eases. Most Midwestern states have six orfewer district veterinarians, and funds tohire more have been slow to materialize.Federal grants have allowed many states tohire one or two more animal-health special-ists, but officials in most states say thatwon’t be enough to expand the inspectionand education efforts of animal-health

departments much beyond what theyalready are doing.

Emergency management personnelalso worry that many veterinarians are nottrained to diagnose and treat the kinds ofexotic diseases terrorists might introduce.

Similarly, most states lack the capacityto scientifically identify many animal dis-eases that are not native to NorthAmerica. Since high-tech laboratoryequipment is often cost-prohibitive, statesmay need to use distant federal facilities,which could delay diagnosis of samples.

Even when personnel are able to con-duct limited testing in-state, they often areill-equipped to handle the deluge of sam-ples that would likely come in a conta-gious animal-health emergency. A delaycould have devastating consequences if,for example, false rumors of an agroterrorattack affected commodity prices oremergency management preparations, orif they incited the public to hoard food ortake other unnecessary measures.

Communication is key

Perhaps the report’s most troublingconclusion is that a lack of communica-tion still prevents comprehensive actionto stop and respond to agroterror events.

Certainly, there have been successes:Indiana’s Counter-Terrorism and SecurityCouncil, which brings together represen-tatives from the private and public sector– including academics, business leaders,producers and government regulators –has already helped revise the state’s emer-gency preparedness strategy. Efforts toeducate producers, as noted above, havealso been successful.

But in many states, there is little coor-dination between investigative and publichealth authorities; among state, local andfederal officials; and among differentjurisdictions.

“State lines should never be a barrier tothe enforcement of antiterrorist measures,but we know that it’s a problem that hasn’treally been addressed yet,” Kibbie said.

Many officials say efforts to coordinatea response require the kind of expensivedrills and tests that agency budgets don’tcurrently allow; others have noted the dif-ficulty of coordinating a response withofficials from other agencies or jurisdic-tions when their own policies are still

unclear and untested. Almost everyoneagrees that better and more frequent com-munication is key to addressing theagroterror threat, but the report finds thatcurrent efforts remain sporadic and fall farshort of what might be necessary in amajor agroterror event.

The full report, Agricultural Terrorismin the Midwest: Risks, Threats and StateResponses, is available at http://www.csgmidwest.org/member_services/Reports/Ag_Terrorism.pdf.

— Jeff Greco is a former policy analyst atThe Council of State Governments’Midwestern Office. This article originallyappeared in Stateline Midwest, publishedby CSG-Midwest.

President Bush’s proposed FY2004 budget includes $20.5million for the Department ofHealth and Human Services toprotect the nation’s food sup-ply from bioterrorism: $10.5million to implement a regis-tration system for foreign foodproduction, handling and stor-age facilities; $5 million toimprove laboratory prepared-ness; and another $5 million toimprove food monitoring andinspections through state con-tracts and grants.

In addition, according to theU.S. Department of Agriculture,the proposed budget includes“nearly $47 million in new fund-ing to strengthen laboratorysecurity; conduct research onemerging animal diseases; devel-op new vaccines; create newbiosecurity database systems;and continue development ofthe unified Federal-State Diag-nostic Network for identifyingand responding to high riskpathogens.” It also increasesfunding for the Animal PlantHealth Inspection Service by$30 million.

FY 2004 federal budget

homeland securityhomeland security

2001 the United States wind energy sec-tor experienced a 24.5 percent growthrate and, globally, wind power experi-enced the world’s fastest growth rate foran energy source at 31 percent. Thisgrowth has left the United States, at theend of 2001, with an installed wind ener-gy capacity of 4,261 MW in 26 states. Infact, if projected growth numbers holdtrue, the United States can expect windenergy to produce more than 6 percent ofour electricity supplies by 2020.

To put this growth in perspective, a 10-kilowatt wind turbine can generate about16,000 kilowatt-hours annually, more thanenough to power a typical household thatconsumes approximately 10,000 kWhannually. A 1.8 MW turbine can produceover 5.2 million kWh in a year, enough topower more than 500 households.Therefore, the 4,261 MW installed capaci-ty in the United States at the end of 2001 is

enough to annually power approximately 1million households.

Why wind now?

While wind energy has been aroundfor years, there are several factors overthe past few years that have helped itburst on the scene as a viable, cost-com-petitive, long-term source of electricity.While it is widely believed that windenergy increases the security of the U.S.electricity supply, as an inexhaustible,domestic energy source, the currentgrowth in wind energy is related more tothe favorable regulatory and financialconditions the sector has seen lately.

From an economic point of view, thecosts associated with producing windenergy have fallen substantially in thepast several years. Wind turbines todayare more efficient, less costly to operate


Lower costs and state taxincentives spur growth inwind energy production

BY BARRY HOPKINS

States fuel wind power

ow more than just a holdover fromthe 1980s when its growth was ini-

tially spurred by escalating fuel pricesand the introduction of federal and statetax incentives, wind energy is receivingrenewed attention as a resource with thepotential to generate significant amountsof electricity across the United States.

While the windmill-style facilitiesnow popping up across the United Stateswere historically used to translate windinto mechanical energy most commonlyused for pumping water in rural orremote locations, wind-powered electricturbines now generate large amounts ofelectricity for homes and businesses andfor sale to utilities.

Alternative energy has gained a lot of momentum lately with wind powermaking large strides in many states,including Idaho, Illinois, West Virginia,North Dakota, South Dakota, NewMexico, Massachusetts, Montana and Texas.

In 2001, the wind energy industry inthe United States experienced unprece-dented success, as a record amount ofnew wind generation – approximately1,700 megawatts, worth close to $1.7 bil-lion in generating capacity – wasinstalled across 16 states. This yielded a66 percent growth rate for the U.S. windsector, more than double the previousrecord of 732 MW from 1999.

According to the American WindEnergy Association, between 1997 and

NN

energyenergy

Photograph courtesy of Lisa Daniels, Windustry


and maintain and lower in price. Also,larger turbines, requiring fewer units toachieve greater generating capacity, arebringing down overall costs. A wind tur-bine’s output depends on its size and thewind’s speed through the rotor. Becauseof their increased operating efficiencyand larger size, the power production of awind turbine during the past two decadeshas grown from 25 kW per turbine toalmost 2000 kW per turbine today.

In addition to increased efficienciesdue to technology, the federal govern-ment has provided wind energy develop-ers, over the last decade, with an incentive called the Production TaxCredit, which provides a renewable ener-gy facility with a tax credit of 1 1/2 centsper kilowatt-hour, adjusted each year forinflation. In the past, to be eligible, elec-tricity had to be delivered by the produc-er to the grid prior to the program’s expiration period, which was December31, 2001. A qualified project then was setto receive the tax benefit for 10 yearsfrom its commercial operation date. Thetax credit has been a major incentive thathas contributed to wind power’s ability to

compete in cost with traditional fossilfuel-generated power.

Locked into legislation as part of anenergy bill that did not pass Congress,however, the PTC expired at the end of2001. While extended in March 2002until December 31, 2003, Congress’sinability to pass earlier legislation causeda slowdown in new projects, as manydevelopers pushed resources towardbringing more developed projects onlinebefore the 2001 deadline. This uncertain-ty contributed to the record 1700 MW ofwind generation brought online in 2001while only a quarter of that amount wentonline in 2002. The AWEA reported inJanuary that 410 MW of wind productionwent online in 2002, thus showing howimportant the Production Tax Credit is tothe wind energy industry.

States in the wind

Aside from the federal regulatoryenvironment, states have launched manyinitiatives and are providing incentivesthat are fueling the growth of wind ener-gy. Indeed, Congress’s failed effort to

pass an energy bill last year has left manystates taking up the mantle of promotingrenewable energy. The three primaryways states are doing this are by provid-ing tax benefits for installing renewablegeneration equipment, charging utilitiessmall monthly fees used to fund energyconservation and renewable projects, andrequiring utilities to generate a certainpercentage of their electricity fromrenewable power. The latter method,known as Renewable Portfolio Stand-ards, has emerged as an increasingly pop-ular way for states to promote the growthof renewable energy. This has proved aboon for wind energy. As the renewablepower source most competitive with fos-sil fuel-generated electricity, it has expe-rienced the most growth as a result.

Currently 12 states have some form ofRPS; they are Arizona, California,Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massach-usetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. By2017, California will require 20 percent ofa utility’s supply to come from renewableenergy sources, and Nevada will requireutilities to increase their amount of renew-able power sources to 15 percent by 2013.In 2001, spurred by the introduction of aRPS and electricity deregulation, Texasadded 915 MW of wind power. Also,announced in January, New York estab-lished a RPS that will increase the percentage of electricity supplied byrenewable generation to 25 percent by2012 with most of the increase expected toresult from wind energy development.

While the lapse in the Production TaxCredit at the end of 2001 can be seen as amomentum-buster for wind energy, statepolicies play an important role in provid-ing a fertile ground for wind energy proj-ects. According to Kathy Belyeu of theAWEA, “A correlation can certainly bedrawn between a state’s policies, for exam-ple the RPS and electricity deregulation inTexas, and the amount of installed windenergy capacity in that state.”

States without an RPS also arebecoming aware of wind’s potential, notonly as a viable, nonpolluting energysource, but also as a tool to stimulatelocal economies. Wind projects oftenprovide economic gains through addedjobs from construction and operation ofwind generation facilities, increased

While wind energy has seen unprecedented growth during the last fewyears, legal obstacles have emerged against the growing trend of using windturbines to generate electric power.

Turbines have been proposed for the East Coast of the United States totake advantage of wind patterns coming off the ocean and the shorter trans-mission distance to the populous eastern seaboard.

Legal and public opposition to offshore wind farms has arisen over possi-ble environmental impacts that many claim have yet to be properly assessed.Others claim that the tourism industry of these coastal areas will suffer as aresult of large wind farms marring their scenic beauty.

The most strident legal and public battles have emerged over:• The development of the first U.S. offshore wind energy generating facility in

the United States, the Cape Wind Project, to be located approximately fivemiles off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.The wind farm is to consistof 130 wind turbines generating over 400 MW of electricity, spread overapproximately 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound. Initial legal challengeshave been defeated and the first phase of the project, a wind farm datatower, is now under construction.

• A large project planned off the Atlantic shoreline, from the mouth of theChesapeake Bay in Virginia to New England, which would add more than2,000 turbines off the coasts of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.

Opposition to wind farms

energyenergy


landowner revenue from leasing rightsfor wind facilities, and increased prop-erty taxes on development and improve-ments made to the wind facility proper-ties. In cases such as landowner leases,rural farming areas benefit heavily asfarmers can lease out small tracts ofland for the construction of wind facili-ties and, even after their construction,continue to farm right up to the base ofthe wind turbines with no ill effects.

Some of the other incentives providedon a state-specific basis to spur wind,and indeed all renewable energy growth,include production incentives by statessuch as Pennsylvania, California andMontana. States such as Alabama,Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, RhodeIsland and Wisconsin provide state grantand loan programs. Other states, includ-ing Maryland, Ohio, Vermont, Wash-ington, Florida, and Alaska provide statesales-tax exemptions for renewables.And, state income tax incentives, per-sonal and corporate, are employed byseveral states such as California,Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Oregon,Utah, Montana and Maryland.

Therefore, recognizing that state poli-cies toward wind and other forms ofrenewable energy will play as large or alarger part in future wind developmentsas those adopted by the federal govern-ment, many states are charging ahead todevelop this unlimited resource.

— Barry Hopkins is the chief infrastruc-ture policy analyst at The Council ofState Governments.

About a month later, Samuels changedhis mind again and filed to run againstKahn on the Green Party ticket.

Meanwhile, Paul Soper, director ofinternships for the University of Minn-esota Department of Political Science,became involved.

In an e-mail to Kahn, Soper said hespoke to Samuels. “I’m not sure I got veryfar in convincing him of the fact that hisrunning against you was unethical.”

As a result of Samuels’ candidacy,Soper told Kahn he had written a statementof ethics for interns. “I will also make apoint of discussing ethical issues with eachintern when I sign her or him up at thebeginning of the semester,” he wrote.

The campaign took another turn lessthan a month before the election when theMinnesota Supreme Court stepped in andremoved Samuels’ name from the ballot.

In June Samuels had moved, not realiz-ing until August that his new residence wasoutside the district where he was runningfor office. Samuels’ absence from the bal-lot left Kahn unopposed in seeking her15th term.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Kahnhad time to reflect on what happened.

“Everybody thought I was really dumbto let this happen to me,” she said.

A reader of The New York TimesMagazine, Kahn decided to write RandyCohen, author of the publication’s “TheEthicist” column.

After outlining the situation in her letterto Cohen, she asked: “Are we being toosensitive? Should I have been more alert tothis possibility?”

In his response, Cohen assured Kahnthat her “unwariness” does not excuse herformer intern’s actions.

He also encouraged her to establish anintern’s ethics policy.

Cohen suggested part of the ethics poli-cy “require would-be interns to pledgethat upon leaving the job, for a finite peri-od – one term? – they not run against a for-mer boss.”

In the end, Samuels may have pickedup some tips from working for Kahn, butthe legislator said she, too, learned some-thing. “Now I’m more suspicious of peo-ple’s motives.”

— Jack Penchoff is senior editor of StateGovernment News.

An intern’s wrong moveContinued from page 7

my district,” said Kahn. “I’ve never hadanyone tell me that legalizing marijuanawas a major policy issue.”

But Kahn liked Samuels’ initiative. “Hereally did a good job for me,” she said.

Kahn said she tried to interest Samuelsin other issues.

He did research and writing for Kahn,including opinion pieces that appearedin local newspapers under Kahn’s name.Kahn learned of Samuels’ intentions lastspring when she was treating him to lunch.

It was the end of the legislative sessionand Kahn wanted to let Samuels know thatshe would be happy to write him a recom-mendation. He even agreed to work forKahn an additional two weeks because thesession was extended.

During this lunch Samuels handedKahn a press release he had writtenannouncing his candidacy for Kahn’s seat.

“I asked him if he had thought thisthrough,” she said.

He had not only thought it through,he later provided Kahn with an e-mail ofa journal he had been keeping during hisinternship. “Phyllis Kahn is 65 years oldand has served for 30 years,” wroteSamuels. “This is not meant to slighther, but one day a change has to come. Iwant to be the person who takes over for her.”But Kahn was not ready for a change.

Following their lunch, Kahn wroteSamuels an e-mail informing him that hisservices were no longer needed. “I don’tthink I feel comfortable continuing tohave you work here under the current circumstances.”

She wrote Samuels that she wouldhonor her commitment to write a recom-mendation for him. “I told him that Iwould say his work was of very high qual-ity, but that I would have to add that he isan ethically challenged person.”

In response, Samuels wrote Kahn thathe had decided he would not run againsther. He did not believe his actions wereunethical but admitted his timing mighthave been off.

“To announce this on the same day thatyou treated for lunch was poor planning onmy part, and in bad taste,” he said.



and a contrary natural process calleddemethylation – are not well understood,and studies continue to investigate whatconditions favor or restrain the formationof methylmercury.

A complex issue

To compound the complexity, airbornemercury travels long distances from itssource, and can stay in the atmosphere formonths or even years. A geophysical studyreleased in December 2002 traces mercurypollution at sites in California to coal com-bustion in China, thousands of miles andan ocean away.

EPA estimates that the United States’contribution to worldwide mercury lev-els is 3 percent, and that 40 percent ofmercury deposited in the United Statesoriginates from outside our borders.However, other researchers put theamount of deposition in the United Statesthat is attributable to global cycling atlevels as high as 70 percent.

These kinds of factors – both the diffi-culty of addressing foreign sources and thedispute over their role – make it consider-ably more difficult for U.S. policy-makersto take effective action.

Moreover, in another example of theuncertainties surrounding this issue, theU.S. Geological Survey’s mercury Website cautions that the “scientific commu-

into the environment from naturalsources, such as volcanoes, oceans, rocksand soil. Mercury is also released byhuman activity, such as burning coal, wasteincineration, and industrial processes.Small amounts of mercury are found inproducts such as thermometers and bloodpressure gauges, fluorescent lamps, but-ton batteries, electrical and electronicequipment, and dental fillings.

Elemental mercury is generally consid-ered relatively harmless; concerns arise pri-marily when some portion of airborne mer-cury is oxidized and ionized, washes out ofthe atmosphere in rainfall, and comes intocontact with certain bacteria in rivers,streams, and lakes. Under the right circum-stances – principally aquatic systems thatlack oxygen – these bacteria can transformelemental mercury to methylmercury,which can accumulate up the food chainand concentrate in fish tissue.

The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency has concluded there is a “plausiblelink” between consumption of too muchhigh-mercury fish and adverse healtheffects, particularly neurodevelopmentalproblems in developing fetuses and youngchildren. Fish higher in the food chain,such as predators like sharks and sword-fish, are more likely to have larger mercu-ry concentrations, and freshwater fish fromsome locations may have higher levelsthan others. The process of methylation –

Policy-makers face complexissues when it comes toaddressing mercury in theenvironment

BY JANE C. LUXTON AND ANNE K. WALSH

ercury is a hot issue for many states,and although major reductions in

mercury use and emissions have beenachieved, there is a very strong impetus forstates to take action. But the problem iscomplex; there are no easy answers orquick fixes, and policy-makers need to takecare to make sure prescribed remedies domore good than harm.

What is mercury?

Mercury is a naturally occurring ele-ment in the Earth’s crust. It is released

MM

Jane C. Luxton

Mercury in the spotlight

nity’s current understanding of the fate ofmercury in the environment cannot guar-antee or provide reasonable assurancethat significant environmental improve-ment would result from reduced emis-sions of mercury.”

What has been done?

Dramatic declines have occurred inmercury usage and emissions since theirpeak in the 1960s. Recent U.S.-CanadianBinational Toxics Strategy data show morethan a 40 percent drop in mercury emis-sions during the 1990s alone and at least aslarge a decline in U.S. mercury use justfrom 1995 to 2001. A report prepared by

Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection officials documents sharpdownward trends in mercury in sediments,birds, and fish during the last decade.

At the same time, concerns aboutmethylmercury have continued to mount.Forty-four states have issued fish advi-sories, which counsel consumers to limittheir intake of particular species of fish torecommended numbers of meals per monthor to abstain altogether from eating fishfrom specified rivers or lakes. The U.S.Food and Drug Administration now dis-seminates information warning pregnantwomen to restrict their consumption of cer-tain types of fish. The Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention have begun bio-

monitoring of mercury exposures in thepopulation to track trends over time.

Many control measures already havebeen implemented. A long list of federaland state environmental programs hasfocused on mercury: EPA’s Mercury StudyReport to Congress, Mercury ResearchPlan, draft National Action Plan, TotalMaximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) forwaterbodies, Maximum Achievable Con-trol Technology (MACT) standards, NewSource Review standards, and the ClearSkies Initiative are examples on the nation-al front. State and local governments havebeen very active in mercury reductionefforts as well, and have adopted a range ofapproaches to deal with aspects of greatest



The recent drop in U.S. industrialdemand for mercury can be attributed toa number of actions, including federalbans on mercury additives in paint andpesticides; industry efforts to reduce mer-cury in batteries; increasing state regula-tion of mercury emissions and mercury inproducts; state-mandated recycling pro-grams; and voluntary actions by industry.

However, according to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency’s Website, “although the United States andmany other industrialized countries havesubstantially reduced mercury uses andreleases in recent decades, these reduc-tions are not yet reflected in the air, soils,water or fish.”

State actions

Several states have passed legislationto reduce mercury emissions to air, waterand soil as well as the number of mercu-ry-added components in consumer prod-ucts (See the article on the Toxics inPackaging Clearinghouse on page 27 formore information). According to a 2001survey by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 25 stateshave statutes or regulations addressingmercury issues. Eight states and 15municipalities have pledged to sell onlymercury-free thermometers.

Examples of other state actions

include legislation to do the following:prohibit the sale and distribution of mer-cury-added novelties (Indiana, 2001);reduce mercury emissions from con-sumer products (Maine, 2001); preventmercury emissions when recycling anddisposing of motor vehicles (Maine,2002); and require manufacturers of ther-mostats that contain mercury to makeavailable a program for their collection(Oregon, 2001).

Washington Senate Bill 6533, intro-duced in February 2002, is the most far-reaching bill yet in restricting mercuryuse and disposal. It would ban the sale ofsome mercury-containing products andmake manufacturers responsible for thesafe disposal of items containing mercu-ry. The bill died in the 2002 session buthas been reintroduced in 2003.

This year, many states will continue toaddress mercury accumulation in theenvironment and whether to encouragesubstitutes for this versatile but potential-ly harmful metal.

New federal regulations

On December 15, 2003 the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency willpropose regulations on a new category ofemissions for electric power plants: mer-cury. Federal regulation of mercury is cur-rently limited to drinking water (two parts

per billion), seafood (one part methylmer-cury per million) and workplace air (0.1milligram organic mercury and 0.05 mil-ligram metallic mercury per cubic meter).

Human health effects

Mercury is toxic to the nervous sys-tem. Unborn children are especially atrisk. The National Academy of Sciencesrecently concluded that over 60,000 chil-dren born each year may be at risk forneurodevelopmental problems due tomercury exposure in utero. Health effectsfrom low-level mercury exposure includeI.Q. deficits, developmental delays,impaired motor function, attention andbehavioral problems and vision damage.Exposure to higher levels has been linkedto disturbances in sensations, speech andhearing impairment, difficulty walkingand mental disturbances.

States issue advisories to warn citizensagainst eating contaminated noncommer-cially caught fish and to protect vulnera-ble populations, such as women and children. Eleven states have statewidemercury fish advisories; 44 states haveissued mercury advisories for more than50,000 water bodies.

— Karen Marshall is a senior policy analyst at The Council of StateGovernments.

States address mercury issues



no impact on reducing further depositionin that location.

Controls

The feasibility of mercury-reductiontechnologies for further lowering of emis-sions is a matter of debate. A study byOhio’s EPA concluded that a treatmenttechnology currently does not exist toremove mercury to achieve the 1.3 or 1.8parts per trillion water quality criteria infederal EPA’s draft water quality guidance.Even apart from technical feasibility, cost-benefit considerations add many questionsto the decision-making equation.

Health effects

While there is agreement that mercuryis associated with certain adverse healtheffects, controversy continues over effectsat differing exposure levels. For example,the New England Journal of Medicinepublished two articles in its November 28,2002 issue drawing opposite conclusionson cardiological impacts from mercury.EPA has acknowledged difficulties inquantifying the extent of health risks dueto electric utility mercury emissions. As anaturally occurring element, some back-ground level of mercury is normal, butwhat level or levels are within backgroundranges, and what levels, even above back-ground, are “safe”? Many questions haveyet to be answered.

Surplus mercury

The Defense Department maintains thenation’s stockpile of surplus mercury, andhas a proceeding underway to determinehow to reduce or eliminate its mercuryinventories. There are no active mercurymines in the United States, but some for-eign countries subsidize mercury miningto protect jobs. Some knowledgeable par-ties believe that selling off U.S. defensestocks will lower the world price for mer-cury and could reduce incentives for mining abroad. Others fear that such a pol-icy would perpetuate or even increase mer-cury use internationally. This debate mustbe resolved. Further, the United Statesneeds to address what to do with increasingsupplies of recycled mercury, as less andless is used in processes and new products.

Regulatory issues

Since mercury travels long distances byair, unaffected by state or national borders,it is unclear who has authority to controlreleases that flow from one state or coun-try into another. Moreover, because non-U.S. sources are a significant source ofmercury deposition domestically, globalcooperation appears to be necessary toachieve lasting mercury reductions.

Further, regulatory activity can createinadvertent adverse consequences. Forexample, a federal initiative to reducemercury in medical products left hospi-tals without adequate substitutes for theirblood pressure measurement devices. Inresponse, the American HeartAssociation and National Heart, Lung,and Blood Institute issued a statement ofconcern in 2002. Alternatives to standardblood pressure cuffs with mercurygauges were found to be of unreliableaccuracy, with blood pressure readingsoff by 30, 40 or even 50 points. This is“clearly a matter of public health,”according to Dr. Claude Lenfant, directorof the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.At least one case of misdiagnosis that ledto a stroke in an elderly patient has beendocumented.

Lastly, in a time of limited resources,regulators must prioritize multiple envi-ronmental goals, balancing expectedhuman health and ecological benefits witheconomic, social and other impacts, theavailability of substitutes, and countlessother factors involved in the regulatorydecision-making process.

The path forward

With so many complexities and uncer-tainties, simplistic solutions will not beeffective. Setting priorities based onimpact and consequences, and pragmaticmeasures that focus on sound science,verifiable public health benefits, andcost-effectiveness, will maximize thechances for success.

— Jane C. Luxton is a partner with King& Spalding LLP, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm, where she specializes inthe environmental regulation of toxic sub-stances. Anne Walsh is an associate withthe firm.

concern to their citizens. At least 11 stateshave passed laws restricting or banning the sale or use of mercury in some prod-ucts sold within the state. Local govern-ments have passed similar ordinances. A helpful Web site that illustrates the num-ber of state and local initiatives can befound at http://www.mercuryk12.org/legisbystate.htm.

International efforts also are underway.The United States and Canada have a well-established Binational Toxics Strategy inplace geared toward 50 percent reductiontargets in mercury releases and uses by2006. In addition, the United States is participating in the United NationsEnvironment Programme Global MercuryAssessment and in efforts under the aus-pices of the North American Commissionfor Environmental Cooperation, whichwas created under NAFTA.

Industry has played an important roletoo. For example, the Chlorine Instituterecently released its Fifth Annual Reportto EPA showing a 75 percent reduction inmercury use by the chlor-alkali industrybetween 1995 and 2001. The sector hasalready surpassed its commitment toreduce mercury use by 50 percent by2005. Electronics manufacturers, batterymakers, the fluorescent light industry,thermostat manufacturers, and othershave voluntarily launched mercury reduc-tion and recycling programs for their mer-cury-containing products.

Where matters stand

Despite these reductions, there is still astrong movement to take additionalaction to reduce mercury in the environ-ment. Decision-makers must confrontseveral considerations when contemplat-ing further action.

Sources

The global cycling of mercury makes itdifficult to determine the actual sources ofmercury in a targeted area; in fact, EPA hasconcluded “it is not possible to quantifythe contribution of U.S. anthropogenicemissions relative to other sources of mer-cury, including natural sources and re-emissions from the global pool.” Thus,taking action locally, such as stringent totalmaximum daily loads, may have little or

used less than their share, allowingCalifornia to take more than its entitle-ment. Recent economic growth, demo-graphic changes and drought conditions inthe West have forced the upstream states todemand enforcement of the compact.

“At the heart, it is an issue of scarcity,”said David Kranz, assistant manager ofthe California Farm Bureau. “The watersupply cannot keep up with populationgrowth. Reallocation must occur.”

On January 1, after California missed aDecember 31, 2002 deadline to develop along-term plan to reduce water with-drawals from the Colorado River,Department of the Interior Secretary Gale

Norton ordered department employees toreduce the flow of water to SouthernCalifornia by 800,000 acre-feet. An acre-foot of water is equivalent to covering anacre in one foot of water, or approxi-mately 325,851 gallons.

California officials tried to meet theircommitment by convincing ImperialValley farmers to sell their water rightsto Southern California cities, but noagreement was reached by the deadline.A major obstacle in the deal is the SaltonSea and the migratory birds that stopthere. The Salton depends heavily on therun-off from Imperial Valley agriculture.Farmers are concerned that if the amount

he U.S. economy depends on cleanwater. Manufacturers use 10 trillion

gallons each year, and the average house-hold uses 100,000 gallons annually.Water used for irrigating crops and rais-ing livestock helps make American farm-ers the most productive in the world.

But increasingly, the demand for waterexceeds the supply in many areas of thecountry. Shortages are causing tensionamong neighboring cities, rural areas,states and even countries that share thesame water source. And conflicts overwater rights are increasingly ending up incourt. According to Georgia Rep. BobHannah, “Water is the issue of the 2000s.”

Colorado River Basin: A hot spot

In recent years, states in the ColoradoRiver Basin have experienced the fastestpopulation growth in the country. Forexample, since 1950, Phoenix, Arizona’spopulation has jumped from 332,000 to 3million, while Las Vegas’ populationgrew from 48,000 to 1.4 million, accord-ing to The Economist. As a result, theColorado River is at the center of a water-rights battle that involves farmers andcity dwellers, seven states and the U.S.Department of the Interior.

A 1920s interstate compact allocatedwater among Wyoming, Colorado, NewMexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona andCalifornia, but for years, six of the states

Population growth, increased industrializationand agricultural waterdemands during periods of drought are enflaming tensions between states and setting the stage for the next round of water wars

BY SCOTT RICHARDS AND CAROLYN ORR

Water Wars

TT

critical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state governmentState TrendsState Trendscritical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state government


of irrigation water in the Imperial Valleyis reduced, concentrations of agriculturalchemicals and naturally occurring miner-al salts from the soil will increase, result-ing in wildlife poisoning. Imperial Valleyfarmers unsuccessfully attempted toinclude liability protection in the redistri-bution plan, which would have protectedthem from environmental lawsuits for thedeath of migratory birds and the cost ofcleaning up the lake.

In February, after meeting withCalifornia’s Senate and Gov. Gray Davis’staff, the four Southern California waterdistricts were still unsure how to negoti-ate the agreement to reallocate ColoradoRiver water.

At the same time that DOI was reduc-ing California’s water supplies, a judge innortheastern Colorado declared that thestate had exceeded its authority inapproving well construction, which mayforce thousands of wells to shutdown. Atissue is whether 3,000 irrigation wells inthe South Platte River Basin northeast ofDenver have been pumping too muchwater, drying up the river and injuringfarmers and cities with more long-stand-ing water rights. Farmers are looking tothe state to provide relief. Colorado offi-cials are expected to appeal the court rul-ing and introduce legislation addressingwater rights.

Impact on agriculture

What might reduced water suppliesmean for Western farmers? There isspeculation that agriculture in the Westmay be about to change radically.Biotechnology companies are develop-ing drought-resistant crops, but commer-cial release of these varieties is still sev-eral years off. Vegetable producers mayswitch to less water-intensive crops, likewheat. Even though agricultural lands inparts of the West are very productive,farmers are increasingly facing competi-tion from cheaper imports, as well asstricter environmental regulations.

In light of these changes, the mostlucrative option for an aging populationof agriculture producers may be to selltheir water rights to the growing cities ofthe arid West. A number of privateinvestors in California are purchasing

water rights and positioning themselvesto sell billions of gallons of water toSouthern California.

Water wars move south

While attention has focused on theWestern conflicts, other states have simi-lar problems. According to JimmyPalmer, administrator of the Environ-mental Protection Agency’s Region Four,“The Western water wars have reachedthe South.”

In August 2002, the Oklahoma WaterResources Board was prepared to sueTexas for allegedly storing about 2 billiongallons a year of Canadian River waterthat belongs to Oklahoma. In November,Oklahoma and Texas officials announceda water compact to deliver 160 milliongallons of surface water from six riverbasins to drought-stricken Texas. Okla-homa will invest revenues earned fromthe sale to spur economic growth in the22 counties giving up the water.

Alabama, Georgia and Florida havebeen involved in ongoing negotiations onthe Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint

and the Alabama-Tallapoosa-Coosa riverbasins for more than a decade. Currently,the Chattahoochee provides more than 85percent of the Atlanta area’s total watersupply. In 2001, the Army Corps ofEngineers predicted Atlanta’s intake fromthe Chattahoochee would exceed itscapacity by 2030, requiring the metroarea to find other sources. However, byJune 2002, the Corps reported that metro-politan Atlanta already exceeded predict-ed 2030 water-use levels.

Within the framework of two watercompacts, the states are attempting tofashion a solution that takes into accounteach state’s priorities. Georgia officialspredict that the metro Atlanta region willneed more than 705 million gallons ofwater per day from Lake Lanier on theChattahoochee River through 2030,severely reducing the amount of wateravailable for Alabama, Florida and otherparts of Georgia. Alabama officials areconcerned that Atlanta’s growing thirstfor water will diminish their ability toexpand towns and industries along theGeorgia border. In Florida, observersworry about the health of the

State TrendsState Trends


the power to overrule the EndangeredSpecies Act if it causes unbearable eco-nomic hardship.

Is global warming involved?

Last year was the second warmest inthe 140 years during which records havebeen kept; only 1998 was warmer.Researchers predict there is a 50 percentchance 2003 will be another hot year,due to El Nino. During the last twoyears, some states, including Colorado,Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming andNebraska also experienced record ornear record dryness. In Montana, 1998to 2002 was the driest period sincerecords began in 1895.

Because of below-average precipita-tion levels throughout the West, reser-voirs have been significantly depleted.In January, statewide totals for majorreservoirs in Arizona, Colorado,Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Utahwere less than half their normal levels.Reservoir levels in Idaho and Montana

Apalachicola Bay and the oysters thatlive there. In January, governors fromthe states met to discuss and hammer outa water allocation formula. However, thegroup postponed the January 31 dead-line to July 31, the 13th such extensionsince the negotiations began in 1998.

Georgia legislators recently completeda study of water needs and are proposinga water management agency to develop astatewide, comprehensive water manage-ment plan. The agency’s first step wouldbe to determine actual water use.

International tensions

Disputes over water rights are not lim-ited to disagreements between states orurban and rural areas. Mexico and Texashave been in dispute over a 1944 treatythat stipulates Mexico must provideTexas with 350,000 acre-feet of RioGrande water each year. Mexico can sendless than this amount annually, as long asthe total amount over a five-year periodaverages 350,000 acre-feet per year.Mexico owes Texas more than 1.5 mil-lion acre feet. Recently, U.S. officialsagreed to an interim water-supply plan inwhich Mexico is to supply 550,000 acre-feet of water by October 2003.

Endangered species vs. human needs

In the Northwest, stakeholders in theColumbia River Valley are calculatingthe impact of below-average precipita-tion levels. Through most of this winter,there has been little rainfall, lower-than-average snow packs and below-normalstream levels, raising concerns over theimplications for hydroelectric powerproduction and fish. In fact, hydroelec-tric power has dropped behind biomass(plant material) as the primary source ofrenewable energy this year because ofwater shortages.

Environmentalists are concerned thatlow water levels are likely to lead hydro-electric producers to declare a poweremergency, as they did during the 2001drought. The emergency status allowedthe producers to deny water needed bymigratory fish to pass over hydroelectricdams, in favor of electricity production.Environmentalists sued the hydroelectric

producers for failing to treat fish equallywith power production, as required bylaw. Because of the lawsuit, the ArmyCorps of Engineers moved almost alljuvenile salmon and steelhead around thedam by barge.

Similarly, in New Mexico, the endan-gered silvery minnow threatens Albu-querque’s use of water from the RioGrande River. A federal appeals court willdecide whether the Endangered SpeciesAct, which protects critical habitat ofendangered species, outweighs Albuqu-erque’s water rights. The city dependslargely on water from the Rio Grande,which is also crucial to the silvery minnow.

Officials in several states are sidingwith New Mexico officials’ efforts tomaintain water supplies from the RioGrande for Albuquerque’s population.Many Western officials worry that a courtdecision in favor of the fish would stopfederal water projects in their states. Thestakes are so high that New Mexico offi-cials are prepared to call for a conveningof the “god squad,” a federal panel with

critical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state governmentState TrendsState Trendscritical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state government



were only slightly higher. This winter’s below-average snow in

the Dakotas and Montana, coupled withthe drought, does not bode well for 2003.As of February, Montana had receivedonly 70 percent of normal snow fall,increasing the probability of continuingwater wars this year.

Meanwhile, Seattle officials are con-cerned that changing weather conditionsand global warming could affect the city’swater system. Seattle relies on glaciers inthe Cascades Mountains that have beenretreating in recent decades.

Some scientists are also concerned thatwinter snow packs may be diminishingThey predict that warmer temperatureswill change the precipitation that does fallinto rain, rather than snow, decreasingsnow pack levels throughout the West.

State TrendsState Trends

Snow packs act as reservoirs, retainingwater as snow in the winter and slowlyreleasing it throughout the spring and sum-mer. If drought and global warming causereduced snow packs or early meltdown,summer stream and river flows will bereduced. This could put hydroelectric pro-ducers, the agricultural community andendangered species at odds again.

Long-term planning

Although water shortages are current-ly more severe in some regions than inothers, officials in all states need to planfor the future. “The drought has precipi-tated this crisis, but long-term solutionsare needed,” said Kranz of the CaliforniaFarm Bureau. He stressed the need to“encourage state officials to find new

ways to store water.”Georgia Rep. Bob Hannah agrees. “We

are currently experiencing a false sense ofsecurity because of recent rains,” he said,“but long-term planning has to be donenow, not in the crisis situation brought onby years of drought.”

In New Mexico, Sen. Dede Feldmanand Rep. Mimi Stewart introduced legisla-tion in late January to develop a statewidewater plan. New Mexico Gov. BillRichardson proposed a similar effort dur-ing his campaign last fall, calling for spe-cial courts to decide water-rights cases,along with conservation and drought-plan-ning efforts.

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry’s “Con-trolling Our Destiny” program calls forconstructing the state’s first large-scaleocean water desalination plant, alongwith other ways to develop new watersources, adopt efficient water-use methods, and finance water infrastruc-ture projects.

And, during her first State of the StateAddress, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitanocalled for “a renewed focus on conserva-tion in our water policies so that we mayensure Arizona will have adequate waterresources for generations to come.”Napolitano has ordered the state’s may-ors to make water a top priority, accord-ing to The New York Times.

Growing populations, increasing indus-trialization and agricultural water demandswill have major infrastructure, environ-mental and state fiscal impacts in thefuture. For example, more reservoirs maybe needed to collect winter rains and savethem for spring and summer. Barriers likedams and the habitat changes they causecould have a significant detrimental effecton a range of aquatic life. State and localofficials will be called upon to address theneed for new measures to promote waterconservation practices and to enforce ormodify existing ones.

Ultimately, state officials will need towork cooperatively across borders todevelop innovative programs, policiesand partnerships to better manage theirincreasingly precious water resources.

— Scott Richards is chief environmentalpolicy analyst and Carolyn Orr is leadagriculture and rural policy analyst atThe Council of State Governments.



Lessons learned from theChesapeake Bay clean-upeffort could be used in otherlarge-scale environmentalmanagement efforts

BY ANN PESIRI SWANSON

he Chesapeake Bay has often beenreferred to as the “crown jewel” of

the United States’ 850 estuaries. It is thelargest and most productive estuary inthe country and among the most produc-tive in the world.

More than 3,200 species of plants andanimals and some 300 types of fish, crabs,clams and oysters live there. Together, theyhave a commercial value of more than $1billion annually. Half of the national catchof the Atlantic blue crab and 90 percent ofthe nation’s soft shell crab catch are har-vested from the Chesapeake.

In the mid-20th century, the bay wasexhibiting troubling signs of distress.Diseases were killing oysters and waterquality was declining. Much of its water-shed lies in some of the fastest develop-ing regions of the country. One and a halfmillion gallons of treated sewage per dayas well as soil, fertilizer and pesticidesrunning off farms were choking outunderwater grasses, the spawning groundfor a variety of aquatic life.

Since 1983 a regional restoration efforthas sought to reverse the bay’s decline bymanaging all of its waters and the landthat defines its watershed as a singleecosystem – not a simple task, since the64,000-square-mile watershed encom-passes part or nearly all of six states: New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland,

Delaware, West Virginia and Virginia.Further confounding the challenge, theregion is not only large, it is ecologically,culturally and politically diverse.

The current restoration effort attempts toseek a balance whereby the human popula-tion can prosper while native fish andwildlife are provided with ample habitat,clean water and harvest restrictions suffi-cient to sustain their populations.

With the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agree-ment as its integral and most basic charter,the Chesapeake Bay Program has growninto a unique regional institution, guidingand coordinating bay-related activities ofhundreds of federal, state, local and inter-state government agencies, and workingwith dozens of business, civic and environ-mental organizations. (For more informa-tion on the program and its history, visithttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/.)

Over the last 25 years, the programhas evolved. What began as a water-

quality program designed to address thedecline of the bay’s living resources hasgrown into an integrated management ofland, air, water and living resources,including humans. This evolution fromwater to watershed has required all part-ners to constantly reassess how theymanage the program.

Lessons learned

Two decades of effort have proved achallenging education in how to tacklerestoration at a large scale. Some or all ofthe key lessons learned during this effortmay be transferable to the restorationefforts of other large-scale environmentalmanagement efforts.

1. Begin with comprehensive sci-entific studies that combine theory,detailed knowledge, monitoring andmodeling. Making science available inan easily understandable format greatly

TT

Members of CSG's Agriculture and Rural Policy Task Force and Environmental Task Force visit-ed the Chesapeake Bay in December.

Restoring theChesapeake Bay



improves the chances of it being integratedinto the policy decision-making process.The best science and technology is normally found in research laboratories atregional universities. As we move towardwhole-ecosystem programs, facilitated andmeaningful exchange of information bet-ween the academic research and manage-ment communities is absolutely essential.

2. Involve the highest levels of lead-ership possible. The chair of theChesapeake Bay Commission, the gover-nors of three states, the mayor ofWashington, D.C. and the administratorof the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency provide prominent leadership asmembers of the “Chesapeake ExecutiveCouncil.” Only high-ranking political fig-ures in each jurisdiction have the author-ity to endorse and implement policiesdeveloped by the program infrastructure.

3. Embrace clear, strong, specific,comprehensive and measurable goals.The Bay Program’s goals include specif-ic ones, such as a tenfold increase in oys-ters by 2010 and striking the bay from thefederal list of impaired waters. In“Chesapeake 2000,” an update to theoriginal Chesapeake Bay Agreement,many of the nearly 100 commitments arequantifiable, making progress measur-able and keeping leaders accountable.Commitments should be realistic, butthey should also challenge programs toimplement significant change. In addi-tion, they should form the basis for peri-odic re-evaluation of progress.

4. Encourage the participation of abroad spectrum of participants. TheBay Program has established more than50 subcommittees and workgroups toensure that all interests are representedand that the program’s goals are ulti-mately achieved. Strong communicationstrategies, frequent meetings and aninclusive process have become the pro-gram’s signature. Electronic mail and theInternet enable many people to partici-pate at reduced expense.

5. Provide incentives and methodsfor institutional cooperation. In the Bayregion, the principle incentives aremoney and public pressure. The active,financial involvement of the Environ-mental Protection Agency and other fed-eral agencies has leveraged hundreds ofmillions of state and local dollars. An

informed and active public has continuedto provide positive pressures on electedofficials to adopt strong policies and tomaintain federal and state funding forbay clean-up initiatives. Behavioralchange can have a huge multiplier effect.States can take advantage of their educa-tion infrastructure to teach ecologicalprinciples and environmental steward-ship to the next generation of citizens.

6. Inform and involve the public.The larger Chesapeake program camefirst and is now forming the context for local river-specific program devel-

opment. An informed and vocal publichas proven to be the policy-maker’sgreatest ally.

7. Develop a balanced set of man-agement tools. Management tools rangefrom legislative mandates to voluntaryefforts. Combating known sources of pol-lution must be the immediate goal. Thephosphate detergent ban taught us thatchanging peoples’ behavior has great cat-alytic potential to lead to further changes.Progress in pollution control will engen-der support for more difficult and costlyactivities such as habitat restoration andwetland mitigation.

8. Choose pollution prevention beforerestoration or mitigation. In the Chesa-peake Bay region, the prevention of pollu-tion at its source has repeatedly proven tobe the preferred approach. A ban on phos-phate-containing laundry soaps in the1980s resulted in nearly a 40 percentreduction in point-source phosphorusentering the Chesapeake Bay at no cost togovernment and little cost to consumers.The full restoration of an ecosystem, once

it is degraded, has proven complex, costlyand usually impossible.

9. Test scientific theories and man-agement approaches on a small scale.Testing research methodologies andpollution control strategies on a smallerscale, using demonstration or pilot proj-ects, has led to increased success whenthese techniques have been applied morebroadly in the region. These demonstra-tion projects have helped to develop pub-lic confidence, attract support dollars andbuild the confidence of political leaders.

10. Focus on integration of govern-ment agencies. Achieving proper inte-gration challenges the boundaries of traditional resource management, re-quiring the cooperation of diverse playerswith different educational, philosophicaland professional orientations. We strong-ly recommend that a coastal program pro-vide for the integration of managementamong the disciplines, science and citizenstewardship as a critical first step.

11. Conduct regular reassessments ofgoals and progress. A cornerstone of theChesapeake Bay Program has been a con-stant commitment to reassess its goals,monitor the trends and measure ourprogress. Periodically, these efforts revealnew information that, in turn, leads to im-proved ways of controlling pollution, man-aging fisheries and restoring habitat.Sometimes this necessitates a change inhow we do things. Regardless of the com-mitments that have been made in the past orthe information that has been released, it isalways better to be straight-forward withthe findings. The public has generallydemonstrated an ability to alter course ifnew knowledge dictates a revised approach.

12. Demonstrate and communicateresults. Measuring progress and publiciz-ing results has proven key to sustainingleadership commitment and public support.Honesty, even when the findings are disheartening, is critical. Many coastal pro-grams were instituted in response to a cri-sis: toxics in marine mammals, red tides, oilspills, crashes in a fishery, to name a few.Continuing citizen stewardship depends onmaking progress in the absence of crisis.

— Ann Pesiri Swanson is executive direc-tor of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, atri-state legislative authority, in Anna-polis, Maryland.

Ann Pesiri Swanson


onpoint source pollution may notbe a hot-button political issue for

many voters, but that doesn’t make itany easier for state policy-makers toaddress. The nation’s top source of waterpollution has spawned seeminglyintractable battles between environmen-talists and local officials, unwieldyalliances between farmers and develop-ers, and regulatory headaches for hap-less state officials.

In the meantime, population growthand greater contamination of naturalwater sources have endangered the watersupply across the Midwest. Wisconsin’sgroundbreaking effort to limit and regu-late polluted water runoff breaks theregional logjam on the issue and offerslegislators a look at how one state dealtwith a thorny environmental problem.

Nonpoint source pollution impactsenvironmental quality far beyond theimmediate contamination zone. As rain-water runs down a street or pesticidesflow into a nearby creek, contaminantsenter the water supply. In Wisconsin, theDepartment of Natural Resources esti-mates that 40 percent of the state’sstreams and 90 percent of its inland lakes– key water sources for the state – are sig-nificantly impacted by contaminatedwater runoff. Left untreated, contaminat-ed water can pose a health hazard tohumans and animals and may strain the

resources of areas forced to look else-where for their water needs.

As a result of legislation passed in 2002,Wisconsin now has the toughest rules inthe nation regarding nonpoint source pollution. The new regulations establishpollution standards and prohibitions,implementation and enforcement proce-dures, and a process for developing technical standards that the DNR had never elaborated when nonpoint source pollutioncontrol was a voluntary exercise.

According to the new regulations, con-tractors, developers and farmers will haveto submit plans that specify how they willreduce sediment and pollutants on theirland by 80 percent before March 2003.New development on sites of 5 acres ormore (1 acre or more as of March 2003)must limit sediment to the lowest practi-cable level, as determined by erosioncontrol plans approved by DNR person-nel. Municipalities will submit plans tocut sediment 20 percent below currentlevels by 2008 and by 40 percent in 2013– tasks that will require more efficientstreet sweeping, better monitoring ofstorm sewers, more frequent deicing, andmore efficient disposal of grass clippings,among other measures.

In a compromise that ensured greaterrural support for the measure, theUniversity of Wisconsin will researchways of controlling agricultural runoff –

mainly through the use of uncultivated land“buffers” – before the DNR issues perma-nent guidelines on how agricultural runoffcan be contained. Supporters of the newlaw say that such research will help reducefarmers’ eventual compliance costs andallow Wisconsin farmers to take advantageof federal conservation grant funds.

Incremental solutions

While clean water laws have beenaround for more than 30 years, lawmakershave had a difficult time drawing attentionto the risks of nonpoint source pollution.

Fetid waterways and unsightly smoke-stacks galvanized many Americans to fightagainst the worst excesses of point sourcepollution in the 1970s and 1980s, but waterrunoff does not furnish the powerfulimages that might energize environmental-ly minded citizens.

In Wisconsin, advocates of various solu-tions to the runoff problem finally realizedthat only a low-key, decentralized processcould keep interested parties engaged in adebate that would eventually produceguidelines on which the Legislature mightact. Sen. Jim Baumgart gives the state’sDepartment of Natural Resources most ofthe credit for keeping the debate on track.

“The DNR held 35 hearings, draftingand redrafting the bill several times,slowly bringing people together on a very

Groundbreaking legislationoffers a model for dealingwith nonpoint source pollution

BY JEFF GRECO

NN

Wisconsin tackleswater pollution




difficult issue,” he said. Baumgart addedthat the outlines of reform were alreadyclear: rules had been passed several yearsago mandating the eventual adoption oftougher standards, farmers had takenmany steps to cut down on agriculturalrunoff, and the availability of federalfunds (from the recently reauthorizedfarm bill) offered an incentive for all par-ties to come to an agreement.

Rep. Alvin Ott also gives credit toagency officials. “The process workedsuccessfully because the agencies includ-ed everyone in compromises along theway,” he said.

By the time Ott and fellow lawmak-ers took up an already fleshed-out bill,only a few outspoken activists opposedthe compromise solutions. The Legis-lature approved the bill with little insti-tutional dissent.

Ott and Baumgart agree that incremen-tal solutions are key to problem solvingand were especially helpful in convincinginterest groups to buy into the process.Baumgart said the Legislature’s pastdecision to identify goals that might sub-sequently be legislated made the new laweasier to adopt.

“We were able to argue that we wereputting the intent of the rule we alreadyhad passed several years ago intoeffect,” he said, noting that farmers,developers and homeowners have had

will postpone water runoff improvementsrather than cancel them. “It was importantto get this bill passed, even if all the moneyis not available now,” Ott said. “We don’twant to waste the tremendous effort thatstakeholders have put into this issue.”

Ott does worry that the law actuallypunishes environmentally conscious farm-ers and developers who have already taken,at their own expense, many of the steps thatthe new law requires. He contends that thereason this legislation got off the ground atall is the “strong volunteer spirit on the partof so many Wisconsin farmers and devel-opers.” These same people may be dis-suaded from taking the initiative on otherenvironmental issues if they speculate thatthe state may someday pay them to makeimprovements, Ott adds.

Still, he recognizes that nonpointsource pollution affects everyone; bodiesof water can be easily contaminated bythe lax practices of even distant farmersand developers whose pollutants maketheir way down the state’s waterways.

While the new law still faces hurdles– enforcement won’t be easy and fund-ing will remain a challenge for a while –the impact on Wisconsin is likely to befar-reaching.

“Over the next 10 years, we now have aprogram in place that comprehensivelyminimizes the effects of water pollutionfrom both urban and rural sources,” Baum-gart said. It is an achievement that, so far,no other state has been able to match.

— Jeff Greco is a former policy analystat The Council of State Governments’Midwestern Office. This article originallyappeared in Stateline Midwest, publishedby CSG-Midwest.

time to consider how they might complywith stricter regulations.

Challenges ahead

The bill still represents an enormouschallenge for Wisconsin policy-makers,Ott said. Legislatively, he worries thatfunding is likely to be a problem. The $50million price tag was an important part ofthe final deal, because local officials wereunwilling to sign on to a plan thatimposed too many unfunded mandates.

Ott says Wisconsin’s budget difficultieshave limited the bonding available for theplan, while other funding sources will bedifficult to tap as the state prepares foreventual across-the-board agency cuts.

But, at worst, the state’s funding crisis

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, nonpoint source pollu-tion comes from many diffuse sources, including:

• Excess fertilizers,herbicides and insecticides from agricultural lands and res-idential areas;

• Oil, grease and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and energy production;• Sediment from improperly managed construction sites, crop and forest

lands, and eroding stream banks;• Salt from irrigation practices and acid drainage from abandoned mines;• Bacteria and nutrients from livestock, pet wastes and faulty septic systems.

See http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ for more details.

What is nonpoint source pollution?

In January, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator ChristieWhitman announced a new Water Quality Trading Policy to reduce industrial,municipal and agricultural discharges into the nation’s waterways.The trading pol-icy will support and encourage states to develop trading programs to implementthe Clean Water Act’s requirements in more flexible and cost efficient ways.According to Whitman,“the most effective and cost efficient way to reduce pol-lution is to provide incentives to encourage action by those who can achieve thereductions easily.Trading can be a cheaper answer to solving water quality pro-grams in the United States.” According to the EPA, the trading process:

• provides greater flexibility to the states in addressing extremely complexpollution problems;

• can result in significant cost savings;• provides an opportunity to regulate pollutants on a watershed basis; and• accelerates pollutant reduction efforts.The agency is providing $800,000 for support of 11 model trading projects

around the country, including projects in the Chesapeake Bay, Colorado River,Long Island Sound and the Cheat River in West Virginia. For more informationvisit http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading.htm.

EPA issues new water policy

Vermont, played a lead role in the solidwaste debate between 1988 and 1996.

As a result of CONEG’s efforts, themodel legislation was produced andTPCH was created.

The model legislation, which was alsoadopted by the European Union, man-dates the phased elimination from thepackaging industry waste stream of fourmetals: mercury, lead, cadmium andhexavalent chromium.

The legislation also prohibits theintentional addition of the four regulatedmetals in packaging.

The Source Reduction Council andindustry representatives developed themodel legislation. It calls for a 2-yearphase-in period of the regulations once astate adopts the measure. This allowsindustry time to make adjustments intheir packaging manufacturing process-es, printing equipment and inventories.

Through TPCH, states’ administrationof their packaging laws is simplified andmore cost-effective, and interpretation ofthose laws is more consistent.

Companies that want to comply withstate packaging laws have a centralizedlocation at the clearinghouse for obtain-ing information and filing requests forexemptions or clarifications.

The clearinghouse’s main objectivesare to provide a forum for policy development; encourage consistent im-plementation of toxic packaging lawsby individual states; minimize theadministrative burden on states andindustry; review legislation periodical-ly and recommend improvements; anddisseminate information and education-al materials on the need to reduce thepresence in packaging of the four regu-lated metals.

To meet those objectives, TPCH coor-dinates conference calls and meetingsbetween member states and technicaladvisory group members; tracks andinforms state and technical group mem-bers of enforcement actions and exemp-tions granted within states; providesbackground information; and writesupdates for major trade organizationsrepresenting the packaging industry.

— Sandy Vasenda is an environmentalpolicy analyst at the Council of StateGovernments. She is the new coordinatorof the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouseand manages the U.S. EPA Environmen-tal Monitoring and Assessment Programand the Working at the Watershed LevelTraining Course.



State and industry partnership helps regulatetoxic substances in packaging

BY SANDY VASENDA

unique partnership of states and theprivate sector is collaborating to

reduce the amount of toxicity in packaging.The Toxics in Packaging Clearing-

house, which has been part of The Councilof State Governments since 1998, providescentral administration for member statesthat have adopted the Model Toxics inPackaging Legislation and offers industrymembers advice and consistent interpreta-tion of the legislation’s regulations.

The Source Reduction Council TaskForce of the Coalition of NortheasternGovernors created TPCH in 1992.

CONEG, a nonpartisan association ofthe governors in Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, NewJersey, New York, Rhode Island and

AA

Reduced toxicityTPCH’s goal

Copies of the “Model Toxicsin Packaging Legislation: AnEvaluation of Its Provisions,Administration, and Impact”are available by contactingSandy Vasenda at CSG by call-ing (859) 244-8163 or sendingan e-mail to [email protected].

Model legislation



hat is environmental innovation?Over the next year, a new

Council of State Governments initiativewill help answer this question as we con-sider new tools, programs and partner-ships aimed at improving the way wemanage and protect the environment.

During the last decade, momentum hasdeveloped behind new, nonregulatoryapproaches to environmental manage-ment – from state environmental leader-ship programs to market incentives, fromenvironmental management systems tothe development of better environmentalindicators. During this time of criticalstate budget shortfalls across the nation,there is even more urgency to search forinnovative programs that allow state gov-ernments to do more with less.

CSG is launching the CSG Center forEnvironmental Innovation to provide stategovernment officials with guidance aboutthese new approaches – what’s being tried,what’s working, and what needs to be fur-ther tested. CSG was founded on the princi-ple that states are the best sources of insight.The new center will draw from innovativeprograms being tested on the state level andmake information from individual states’experiences accessible to all states.

“Our new Center for Environmental

Innovation will allow us to develop new,groundbreaking programs; help us bettercoordinate the innovative programs we’rerunning already; and provide a forum forgetting the word out about our innovationefforts to state officials across the coun-try,” said Scott Richards, CSG’s chiefenvironmental policy analyst.

Why does the current regulatory system need to change?

The “command and control” systemaround which our state and federal envi-ronmental regulatory agencies are current-ly structured is frequently criticized. Thebiggest complaints are that the system:

• discourages “beyond compliance”environmental performance by busi-ness and industry;

• has been relatively ineffective inresponding to major environmentalproblems like climate change andnonpoint source pollution;

• is separated into media-specific divi-sions that are unable to address thevaried environmental impacts of afacility, watershed or organization ina coordinated way; and

• can be slow to respond, too bureau-cratic, inconsistent in enforcement andtoo costly for business and industry.

The new center’s mission is to preparestate leaders to use the next generation ofenvironmental management tools byfocusing on approaches and programs thatare performance-based and information-driven. Proponents believe that innovativeprograms can create incentives for theregulated community to closely monitor

environmental performance at their ownfacilities, develop systematic approachesto reduce facilities’ environmental im-pacts, and establish goals for environmen-tal improvement that go beyond the regulatory minimum. These approacheswill not only benefit the environment,they may produce environmental improve-ments at a lower cost to business, industryand government – an especially importantpoint in today’s economy.

The goal behind most state innovationinitiatives is to create a new approach thatcomplements the traditional regulatorysystem. No one is seriously proposingthat the existing system be scrapped. Mostinnovation proponents acknowledge that abasic, compliance-based system mustremain in place to rein in bad actors thatwill not, or cannot, respond to incentives.Most proponents instead propose buildingflexibility into existing regulations so thatcompanies can take advantage of the incen-tives and rewards of a complementary, per-formance-based system.

Transparency and consensus building,two components that are generally builtinto this kind of approach, make it espe-cially valuable in a democratic system.Transparency acknowledges that informa-tion generated as part of a performance-based approach, like an environmentalmanagement system, should be madeavailable not only to the regulatory agencywith jurisdiction over the facility, but to thepublic – including affected citizens andinterested nongovernmental organizations.Consensus building comes into play asfacility managers, government regulators,and concerned citizens work together to

CSG launches national center to promote innovative environmentalmanagement tools

BY YVETTE R. HURT

WW

Center forEnvironmentalInnovation


decide how a facility should address envi-ronmental problems, rather than regulatorsmaking those decisions alone.

Building on past success

CSG-CEI will build on recommenda-tions from the Policy Academy onEnvironmental Management Tools, a pro-gram CSG cosponsored with the Multi-State Working Group on EnvironmentalManagement Systems over the past twoyears. The Policy Academy convened representatives from state and federal gov-ernment, the business sector, and the pub-lic-interest community in a series ofnational dialogues to identify and assessthe most promising new, innovativeapproaches to environmental management.

The first Policy Academy dialogue washeld in Chicago in June 2002 to identifythe specific educational needs of govern-ment, business and the public-interest sector in the area of environmental inno-vation. After the dialogue, the PolicyAcademy released a report recommendingthe top educational courses participantsbelieved were needed to help states andthe other sectors overcome the barriers toenvironmental innovation.

The academy then convened twonational dialogues in November to identi-fy and discuss emerging trends in environmental management and perform-ance. Both dialogues engaged representa-tives from government, business and thepublic-interest sector in a constructive dis-cussion about how to move the UnitedStates beyond “first generation” environ-mental management tools towardapproaches that confront the often frag-mented, multi-media nature of pollution.

The dialogues included representativesof the European community and othercountries that have moved more quickly toadopt holistic, systematic and perform-ance-based approaches to environmentalmanagement. This international compo-nent helped participants think about envi-ronmental innovation “outside the box” ofour current regulatory system and thepolitical polarization that exists in theUnited States.

Topics covered during the dialoguesincluded: approaches that promote “bey-ond compliance” performance; usingenvironmental indicators to identify prob-

lems and improve results; tools to promotea corporate culture focused on environ-mental performance; approaches toimprove compliance in under-regulatedsectors or in facilities with a history ofpoor performance; experience fromaround the world – major policy initiativesat the national and regional levels; andperceptions of success in environmentalinnovation from government, businessand nongovernmental organizations.Reports summarizing the findings and rec-ommendations from each dialogue will bereleased soon and made available onCSG’s Web site (http://www.csg.org).

CSG-CEI will build on the recommen-dations generated by the Policy Academyprogram and CSG’s National Environ-mental Task Force. The center will drawupon organizational capacity developedthrough dozens of other policy-focusedprojects CSG operates on behalf of statesand the federal government, includingpartnerships with the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the U.S. Agencyfor International Development.

What’s first?

The center’s first initiative will be to

produce a State Official’s Guide toEnvironmental Management Systems,part of a series of guides published byCSG to ensure that even the most com-plex policy topics are fully accessible tostate officials. The guide will be a com-prehensive, nuts-and-bolts referencemanual for state officials who want todesign programs that encourage busi-ness, industry and municipalities toadopt EMSs, and to assist states indeveloping EMSs for their own agencyoperations. The guide will be publishedthis spring.

In the fall, CSG-CEI will cosponsora conference with the University ofPennsylvania’s Program on Law andthe Environment that will focus on the state and federal statutory and regulatory changes that may need totake place before efforts at environ-mental innovation can become widespread.

— Yvette Hurt is an environmental policyanalyst for the Council of StateGovernments and coordinator of CSG-CEI. She is the editor of CSG’s environ-mental journal, ECOS: the environmentalcommuniqué of the states.

CSG has created a national advisory board to guide the center’s activities dur-ing its first year.The advisory board, made up of representatives from states, thebusiness community and nongovernmental organizations, will ensure CSG-CEIhas the diverse input and guidance it needs to identify the most critical environ-mental policy needs of the states.

Members include:• Senator Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey;• Rep. Jackie Dingfelder of Oregon;• Jay Benforado, director of U.S. EPA’s National Center for Environmental

Innovation;• David Hess, outgoing secretary of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environ-

mental Protection and winner of numerous CSG Innovations Awards;• Darryl Banks, senior fellow at the New America Foundation;• Jeff Lane, vice president of state and local relations for Proctor & Gamble;• Brian Borofka, principal strategist for Wisconsin Energy Corporation;• Dell Perelman,senior council, American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care;• Mary Werner (director) and John Vana (environmental engineer) of the New

York Department of Environmental Conservation Pollution Prevention Unit;• Steve Brown, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States;• Andrew Gouldson, professor of environmental policy and management

at the London School of Economics and an internationally recognizedexpert on industrial ecology.

CSG-CEI Advisory Committee



perspective

branch to the executive branch. The problem is, once the poweris delegated, the executive branch then views the authority asits own. And many executive branch members view any over-sight by the legislature as intrusion onto their turf.

Legislators, on the other hand, view their oversight role ascritical and constitutionally required. If the legislature has del-

egated part of its authority to makelaw, it has not only the right, but theresponsibility to oversee it. Thisseems logical, given a proper under-standing of the nature of rules.

It is important to recognize thatthese conflicting positions are nat-ural and rooted in each branch’sconstitutional authority and itsmembers’ understanding of theirrespective responsibilities. If,therefore, their competing stanceson administrative rules are not somuch a “power grab” as they are asincerely held philosophical differ-ence in opinion, rooted in princi-ple, how can they be resolved?

In many states, a common sensesolution to this separation-of-pow-ers tug of war is emerging in theform of effective oversight of

administrative rules by the legislature or by a committee towhich it delegates the responsibility.

While it may cramp the style of some who promulgateand enforce the rule, meaningful oversight is indispensableto responsible, balanced rulemaking. The legislature shouldunderstand the intent of the laws it passes and should knowwhen a government agency has misinterpreted or misappliedthem or when it has stepped over the line in its attempts topractically enforce them.

North Dakota’s experience

Effective oversight has taken varying forms in manystates, but the North Dakota experience may be instructive. In the past, North Dakota legislators frequently lamentedthat a “good bill” they passed had been turned on its head bythe rules that were promulgated to enforce it. The result wasoften that those people the bill was intended to help wereactually further harmed by the resulting rule.

ost people have probably heard complaints (orlodged them) about intrusive, burdensome “govern-ment rules and regulations.” These rules are a

unique creature of shared government power that spur con-troversy not only on Main Street, but in the halls of govern-ment as well.

Business people often feel bri-dled by the rules, finding them dif-ficult to understand and nearlyimpossible to comply with.Legislators get frustrated by howadministrative rules often thwart oroverturn the intent of laws they’vepassed. Those in government agen-cies see them as necessary tools ofthe trade, virtually indispensable incarrying out their regulatory over-sight duties. They may resent thenuisance or intrusion when legisla-tors or citizens object to or try toalter the rules they promulgate.

Love them or hate them, admin-istrative rules are a fixture in theway government does businessthese days. But where did theycome from? Are they really neces-sary? Who should make them,oversee them and have the power to change them? Thesequestions have resonated through the halls of state capitolssince rules began, and they continue today.

Some interesting and, arguably, positive answers arebeing found. They may even represent an emerging newconsensus for regulatory oversight and checks and balances.

Common sense solution

Simply stated, administrative rules are the regulationscreated by the executive branch of government in order tocarry out the laws passed by the legislative branch. The meredescription explains the inherent tension: Both branchesview them as their domain.

Administrative rules typically carry the force and effect oflaw. If it walks like a law and talks like a law, it must be alaw, legislators reason.

That means that administrative rulemaking authority isessentially lawmaking authority delegated from the legislative

MAdministrative rules oversight

BY REP. KIM KOPPELMAN

North Dakota Rep. Kim Koppelman


perspective

believe they are good for the state. The process essentially gives the Legislature’s Administra-

tive Rules Committee the authority to void rules if they werecreated without statutory authority or failed to follow expresslegislative intent; if a public emergency exists; if they conflictwith state law; if they are arbitrary or capricious; or if theagency failed to record how it dealt with concerns expressedduring public hearings and in written comments.

The Administrative Rules Com-mittee and a government agencycan also agree to amend a rule overwhich such concerns are raised.While protecting the interests ofboth branches, this provisionallows many problems that crop upas the public or legislators reviewrules to be addressed, withoutrequiring agencies to go throughthe lengthy, costly rule promulga-tion process a second time.

More recent changes allow anagency to request the voiding ofan existing rule without repromul-gation. This saves the taxpayersadditional cost, encourages state

agencies to rid the Administrative Code of outdated orunnecessary rules, and fosters cooperation between thebranches of government.

The process in North Dakota is working well and thechanges have been instructive to both the Legislature and theexecutive branch.

Legislators are reminded to think carefully about writingmore complete laws that will not require rules, or to careful-ly instruct agencies in statute how, when and why to adoptthem. Government agencies exercise more restraint and arecareful to write rules when state law or the federal govern-ment requires them to, but they are sensitive about embark-ing upon rulemaking otherwise.

The number of rules promulgated has been reduced, few rules have been voided, and the legislative and execu-tive branches are cooperating to streamline and improvethe process.

What began as a contentious power struggle may be turn-ing into a proper, effective check and balance.

— Rep. Kim Koppelman is a business owner and citizen leg-islator from West Fargo, North Dakota. A member of NorthDakota’s Administrative Rules Committee, he has led dis-cussions with legislators and state agency representativesfrom around the country at two CSG annual meetings and isworking with CSG-Midwest to explore opportunities forstates to compare notes on rulemaking and oversight.

Typically, constituents blamed the Legislature. “What kindof crazy law did you folks pass, anyway?” was a commonrefrain from the people back home. Upon investigation, alegislator often discovered that it was the rule, not thestatute, which caused the problem.

The typical response was to pass a new bill the next ses-sion to “undo” the damage the rule had done ... a logical, butcumbersome, costly and potentially damaging solution.“There must be a better way,” mostlegislators lamented.

Reforming the oversight process

Prior to running for theLegislature, I had encountered theadministrative rules process, as abusiness owner. I found it discon-certing that unelected, largelyunaccountable employees of gov-ernment agencies were essentiallymaking laws. These rules wereoften seen as burdensome andunworkable by those they affected.Too often, mandatory public hear-ings held during the rulemakingprocess were merely perfunctory exercises, where the publiccould voice concerns or complaints, but they were largelyignored. This often led citizens to contact their legislatorsabout problems the rules had created.

When I visited with legislators about this, they shared myconcern. In fact, members of the Administrative RulesCommittee at the time complained that the panel, althoughostensibly charged with reviewing rules, was a “toothlesstiger” and could do nothing to alter or overturn a bad rule.Sadly, they found that their concerns also frequently fell ondeaf ears. Consequently, their only recourse was to introducea bill the next legislative session (which could be nearly twoyears away) to revise or do away with the problematic rule.In the meantime, it stayed in effect as law, often provingcostly, intrusive, burdensome or worse to business and theregulated community. Obviously, reform was needed.

As a freshman legislator, my priority was to remedy someof these problems and improve the administrative rulesprocess. In 1995, after excellent research and fine draftingwork by the Legislative Council, the North DakotaLegislature enacted a bill that established meaningful, limit-ed, legislative oversight authority over administrative rulesas they are promulgated.

Predictably, the debate was contentious. But the resultingprocess has worked well. Surprisingly, to some, many exec-utive branch members have even commented that theyappreciate the improvements in the oversight process and

“Meaningful oversight is indispensable to responsible,

balanced rulemaking.The legislatureshould understand the intent of the

laws it passes and should knowwhen a government agency has

misinterpreted or misapplied themor when it has stepped over theline in its attempts to practically

enforce them.”


excellence in action: spotlighting CSG activities, events, resources and affiliated organizationsperspective

Nasdaq, as self-regulatory organizations, adopted regulationsfor their member corporations in an effort to achieve corporatecompliance. Moreover, corporate America, through its profes-sional associations – the Business Roundtable and theConference Board – also recommended progressive corporate-governance reforms. The self-regulatory and professional

association reforms are based oncarefully considered proposals forbetter governance that institutionalinvestors have been advocating overtime and reflect a will by some cor-porate leaders to embrace a cultureof strong board involvement. How-ever, like Sarbanes-Oxley, these,too, fall short as catalysts for lastingchange. The answer to long-termchanges lies with the states.

Claims are being made that theEnron reforms will provide thegreatest sea change in corporategovernance since the enactment ofthe Securities Act and SecuritiesExchange Act in the 1930s. Thatpotential exists, but not because ofSarbanes-Oxley or SEC regulations.

The overall tone of Sarbanes-Oxley and the corresponding regu-lations is one of directing and prohibiting actions to preventfraud and abuse, rather thanimproving the internal governancestructure. While the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations do provide newstructure, the potential exists thatthis hastily drawn legislation willonly result in behavior designed

solely to meet minimum requirements of regulations andnothing more. While the self-regulatory and professionalassociation suggestions represent a positive step towardachieving corporate compliance, they cannot succeed alonewithout the underpinning of the law. The question iswhether that law should be federal or state.

The key to achieving true reform is to assure that the behav-ior of directors in every public corporation boardroom is driv-en by the principle that independent directors have a duty tooversee management and the enterprise as a whole. Neitherthe Sarbanes legislation nor the SEC has provided the struc-

n October 16, 2001, one of the world’s most acclaimedcorporations, Enron, reported a shocking quarterly lossof $618 million. Within a week, Chief Financial

Officer Andrew Fastow was fired, and on December 2, 2001,Enron filed for bankruptcy in the wake of revelations ofoverstated earnings and off balance sheet frauds. Employeeslost not only their jobs, but alsotheir retirement funds, which hadbeen invested in Enron stock. Thedamage to shareholders, innocentemployees, vendors and communi-ties from this fraudulently causedfailure was devastating.

Public shock was followed byanger and calls for action. By springof 2002, more than 30 Enron reformbills were pending in Congress,New York Stock Exchange andNasdaq stock market task forceswere proposing reforms, and theSecurities and Exchange Comm-ission had proposed tighter disclo-sure requirements. The atmospherebecame more charged with revela-tions that executives at Adelphia,Tyco and other companies had egre-giously usurped company assets forpersonal gains. In addition, compa-nies were announcing restatementsof earnings and, by early summer,the stock market had lost $7 trillionin value.

Then came WorldCom, with itsannouncement on June 25, 2002 thatit had improperly accounted for over$3.8 billion in expenses during theprevious five quarters, resulting in the largest earnings restate-ment in business history. On July 21, 2002, WorldCom filedfor bankruptcy. Congress heeded the pressure to move quick-ly. The dikes of containment that had been successfully main-tained by corporate and accounting interests using sound policy arguments of deference to SEC and state regulatory pre-rogatives gave way. As a result, Congress passed the Sarb-anes-Oxley Act of 2002 with little opposition, pushing asidepolicy considerations in the rush to provide the public with evi-dence that it had done its part in fixing the problems.

In addition to Congress’s attempt at reform, the NYSE and

OStates’ role in corporate governance

BY R. WILLIAM “BILL” IDE

“The question is whether thatlaw should be federal or state.”


excellence in action: spotlighting CSG activities, events, resources and affiliated organizationsperspective

ernments must take this opportunity of a changing corporate cli-mate to display their willingness to assert appropriate reformsthat are capable of establishing in directors a sense of responsi-bility for independent oversight.

It is not just state governments’ historic involvement in cor-porate regulation that makes state involvement in corporategovernance issues so desirable. State involvement is the bestanswer to the corporate governance crisis from a policy per-

spective as well. States have craftedcorporate governance principles thatstate courts have then been able toapply in thoughtful manners to han-dle the unique facts of individualcases. The courts have in turn estab-lished an extensive body of lawinterpreting state regulations thatgive guidance for future conduct.Sensitive corporate governanceissues require the flexibility thisstructure provides.

The alternative is to have inflexibleand politicized federal regulationsfor corporate governance issues.

Not only is federal legislation aless desirable approach for establishing the principles ofindependent director oversight, the self-regulatory regula-tions will also prove inadequate. Though the regulationsare thoughtful provisions that make strides towardimproved corporate governance, they do not apply to allpublic companies and de-listing is the only meaningfulsanction. Yet, if the states do not make it clear that theirlaws will be strengthened to require stronger board over-sight of management, there is a real possibility that we willsee the self-regulatory efforts reinforced by federal law,which would preempt the historic role of the states as theguardian of shareholder rights.

If states do not become actively involved in corporate gov-ernance reform, a very real risk exists for the federalization ofstate corporate law. There is an opportunity here for theCouncil of State Governments to impact state involvement incorporate governance issues. For example, the committeeNAST is currently forming.

The Council of State Governments should reinforce theefforts of this committee and encourage similar activities inother parts of state government. Such involvement will opena window to generate new ideas in the realm of corporate gov-ernance. The states have much at stake and little time to lose.

— R. William “Bill” Ide is a member of the law firm ofMcKenna Long & Aldridge, past president of the AmericanBar Association and serves on the ABA’s Task Force onCorporate Responsibility.

tural dynamic necessary to support this principle. If this prin-ciple is to be established, it is the states, not Congress, thatmust take a vital role in bringing about permanent changes incorporate governance.

Importance of state involvement

In order to establish this principle of director responsibilityfor oversight, states must becomeinvolved in the issue of corporategovernance in two ways. First, stateand local governments must, in theirrole as institutional investors andshareholders, make demands on cor-porations to adhere to certain stan-dards of internal governance.Second, states must assess their laws on corporate governance andmake necessary changes where old provisions inadequately assure theneeded adherence of independentdirectors to the above principle ofoversight responsibility.

State and local governments playan important role in today’s economy as institutional investors.As of 2001, state and local governments owned $1.2 trillionworth of pension fund money, a total of 8 percent of U.S. equity. As evidenced by the Enron and WorldCom disasters,corporate governance mishaps can have a tremendous down-ward impact on stock prices. Compounding this problemrecently has been a short-term focus by large institutionalshareholders on the price of stock, rather than a long-term con-cern for the value of the corporation as a whole. Ultimately,this short-term focus increases pressure on management toevade corporate-governance oversight to show performance,thereby increasing the risk for managerial wrongdoing.

We are in a new era where institutional investors can havegreat influence over corporate governance and thereby assuregreater share values for their constituents. The NationalAssociation of State Treasurers, for example, has formed acommittee to study this issue as it relates to state pension funds.

Another Enron reform area of great importance to states isthe continuing role of state laws in corporate governance.Historically, state law has regulated the relationships betweendirectors, shareholders and the corporate entity. Although theSecurities Exchange Acts of 1933 and 1934 established feder-al standards for shareholder disclosure requirements, state lawremained the regulator of corporate governance issues.

Sarbanes-Oxley, on the other hand, clearly represents a fed-eral intrusion into the corporate governance area. Frankly,Sarbanes embodies a concern at the federal level that stateshave not been doing enough to protect shareholders from cor-porate mismanagement. To counteract this concern, state gov-

“If the states do not make it clearthat their laws will be strength-ened to require stronger boardoversight of management, there is a real possibility that we willsee the self-regulatory efforts

reinforced by federal law, whichwould preempt the historic roleof the states as the guardian of

shareholder rights.”


In 1988, the American ChemistryCouncil, then the Chemical Manufactur-ers Association, set off on a precedent-setting course of self-regulation knownas Responsible Care. The program hassucceeded in its goal to enhance thechemical industry performance in areassuch as the environment, public andemployee health and safety, and commu-nity openness.

Community advisory panels now existin almost 300 communities near membercompany plants across the United States.Industry releases to air, land and waterunder the federal Toxic Release Inven-tory program decreased 62 percentbetween 1988 and 2000. There were alsoimprovements in employee occupationalinjury and illness rates, which are rough-ly one-quarter the same rates for all U.S.manufacturing.

In addition, the Responsible Care ethic

has resulted in other council voluntary pro-grams to improve industry performance.For example, the council has worked withthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyand Environmental Defense, a nationalenvironmental advocacy organization, totest high production volume chemicals. Ithas also launched the Long-RangeResearch Initiative in which the industryhas committed to independent scientificresearch to expand the knowledge ofpotential impacts chemicals may have onhuman health and the environment. Inaddition, approximately 100 partner com-panies in the chemical industry and mem-ber companies of the Synthetic OrganicChemical Manufacturers Association haveagreed to implement Responsible Care. Building on these successes the AmericanChemistry Council decided in 2002 to takea hard look at strengthening the program inorder to continue to improve industry per-

formance. This review resulted in a num-ber of significant enhancements.

Responsible Care: The Original Program

The heart of the original ResponsibleCare program was six codes of manage-ment practices relating to: communityawareness and emergency response; pollu-tion prevention; process safety; distribu-tion; employee health and safety; andproduct stewardship. The codes weredesigned to be flexible, performance ori-ented and challenge companies to gobeyond what regulations require. Thecouncil also developed Guiding Principlesdefining the program’s ethic.

Other components of the originalResponsible Care program included: com-pany-to-company dialogue and mutualassistance; company self-evaluation ofcode progress; council reporting on indus-try-wide progress on a select number ofmeasurements such as TRI releases; andvoluntary verification of companyResponsible Care programs.

Responsible Care After 9/11

The first change the AmericanChemistry Council made to ResponsibleCare in 2002 occurred shortly after 9/11.Continuing the philosophy of moving“beyond compliance,” the council adopteda new initiative for enhancing chemicalindustry security and protecting the indus-try’s employees, plant communities andassets from the new terrorist threat facingthe United States. Important elements ofthe initiative include partnering with gov-ernment security and law enforcementagencies, encouraging partners in thechemical industry to enhance the securityof their operations, and communicating

Associate profile: The chemical industry’s Responsible Care

excellence in action: spotlighting CSG activities, events, resources and affiliated organizations

BY DELL E. PERELMAN

The industry improves a program designed to enhance environmental, safety and health performance commitments



with industry stakeholders. The center-piece of the initiative is the ResponsibleCare Security Code developed in consulta-tion with industry stakeholders.

The new Security Code includes anumber of defining features. It is: com-prehensive in scope, addressing securityat plant sites, across the chemical indus-try and within company cyber and infor-mation technology systems; includesaggressive time schedules that are nearlytwice as fast as any previous ResponsibleCare Code; uses U.S. government andother recognized site security assessmentmethods; and includes independent third-party verification.

The Security Code directs membercompanies to establish a four-step securitymanagement system similar in manyrespects to corporate environmental man-agement systems.

Under this system, companies: • prioritize their actions and then con-

duct security assessments using theresults of their prioritization to deter-mine where to take action first;

• implement security enhancementsbased on the findings of theirassessments;

• check their security managementsystems to affirm they are in placeand working properly. This includesverification by independent thirdparties such as firefighters and lawenforcement officials; and

• take any necessary corrective actionbased on the results of the secur-ity checks.

The Security Code is to be implementedno later than June 2005, three years after itwas adopted and two years faster than anyprevious code. Interim deadlines exist forcompleting the site security aspects of thecode. For example, all council memberscompleted their site prioritization in spring2002, and they completed the assessment ofthe industry’s 120 highest priority sites bythe December 31, 2002 deadline, as requir-ed under the code. Security enhancementsfor those sites are now completed or under-way, and all will be done by the end of 2003.

Responsible Care 2003: The next levelof industry performance

In another effort to improve industryperformance, the American ChemistryCouncil also took steps in 2002 to strength-en the original Responsible Care program.The changes were developed in consulta-tion with industry stakeholders and includetransitioning from the original six codes toa new management system called theResponsible Care Management System. (Itis important to note that the new SecurityCode will be integrated into the RCMSwithin two years.) The next level of Re-sponsible Care also includes independentthird-party certification and comprehen-sive industry performance metrics. TheResponsible Care Guiding Principles andthe commitment to company-to-companydialogue and mutual assistance remain anintegral part of the program.

There were several reasons for changingResponsible Care. First, regulations hadchanged significantly since 1988, necessi-tating a re-examination of the program, inorder to ensure it continues to challengemember companies to go “beyond compli-ance.” Second, industry stakeholders havechallenged the industry to do even more,focusing chiefly on the benefits of inde-pendent third-party verification and trans-parent performance metrics. Third, whileindustry performance in areas such as TRIemissions has improved significantly, thechallenge to continue to improve remains.In addition, new performance challengessuch as security go well beyond the scopeof the original program.

The new Management System, whichis in the design stage, will serve as theorganizing framework for ResponsibleCare. It will retain relevant attributes ofthe codes, integrate new industry initia-tives and programs, and reflect aspectsof existing modern corporate manage-ment systems and global systems devel-oped through entities such as theInternational Organization for Standard-ization. One difference between theRCMS and the original six codes is that

the codes typically set forth discretemanagement practices, whereas theRCMS will include management systemelements that can be systematized, doc-umented and certified.

The certification process, which also isin the design stage, will use accreditedindependent third-party auditors to verifymember company implementation of theRCMS. An alternative voluntary certifica-tion process will allow member companyfacilities to be certified for both Respon-sible Care and the international environ-mental management standards.

Finally, public reporting of performancemetrics will be phased in beginning in2004. The goal of the metrics program is tomeasure and encourage continued industryperformance improvement through greatertransparency and a uniform set of meas-urements. The metrics include TRI releases, reportable distribution incidents,process safety incidents and employeeoccupational injury and illness rates. Thesewill now be publicly reported on a company-by-company basis. Additionalnew metrics, to be reported on by eachcompany, include contractor occupationalinjury and illness rates and certain product-related measures relating to the transparen-cy of company risk characterization andmanagement programs. Other new metricsinclude industry greenhouse gas intensityand industry energy efficiency.

These changes – the Security Code, theManagement System, independent third-party certification and performance metrics– significantly strengthen the originalResponsible Care program and the per-formance commitments of council membercompanies. They have been designed tobuild on the successes of that program,while responding to new industry chal-lenges and public expectations. They weredeveloped in partnership with industrystakeholders and offer the prospect ofenhanced benefits for everyone involved.

— Dell E. Perelman is the senior counselfor the American Chemistry Council’sResponsible Care program.


The deadline for Midwestern legisla-tors to apply for a fellowship to attendthe 2003 Bowhay Institute for Legis-lative Leadership Development, BILLD,is March 31.

Each year, the BILLD awards fellow-ships to 35 select legislators in theMidwestern states and provinces to helpthem develop the skills they need to beeffective leaders and policy-makers. The9th annual Bowhay Institute will be heldJuly 11-15 in Madison, Wis. The inten-sive five-day program is conducted bythe Midwestern Legislative Conferenceof The Council of State Governments, incooperation with The Robert M. La Foll-ette School of Public Affairs at theUniversity of Wisconsin.

Faculty from the La Follette Schooland outside experts conduct seminarsand workshops on a variety of topics toenhance leadership skills and knowl-edge of key public policies. Leadershiptraining – the most crucial element ofthe program – is provided on topics such as strategic thinking, coalitionbuilding and conflict resolution.Fellows also participate in professional

development seminars on topics such ascommunicating with the media and pri-ority management.

The annual fellowships are awardedon a competitive, nonpartisan basis bythe BILLD Steering Committee, a bipar-tisan group of legislators from each statein the region. Recipients of 2003 fellow-ships will be announced in May.

Applicants are evaluated based on their

leadership potential, including problem-solving skills, dedication to public serviceand commitment to improving the legisla-tive process. Each fellowship covers thecost of tuition, lodging, meals and a nomi-nal travel stipend.

For applications or more information,please contact Laura A. Tomaka at (630)810-0210 or visit CSG Midwest’s Website at http://www.csgmidwest.org.


Deadline nears for applying for Midwestern leadership institute

Long-time Hawaii lawmaker Sen.Brian Taniguchi recently was tapped bythe CSG-WEST Executive Committee tochair the organization during 2003.Taniguchi will guide work of theSacramento-based association of statelegislators from 13 Western states.Among other duties, he will review theactivities of the organization’s policycommittees, preside over all ExecutiveCommittee meetings and facilitate theWestern Legislative Academy. CSG-WEST’s annual meeting will convene inHonolulu July 29 to August 1.

Taniguchi has served in the HawaiiState Senate since 1994. He served in theHouse of Representatives from 1980-1994. The senator chairs the HawaiiSenate Ways and Means Committee and

also sits on the Tourism Committee. Priorto his election as chair of CSG-WEST,Taniguchi served as chair-elect. In addi-tion, he has chaired the organization’sWestrends Board, which is a forum toidentify the demographic, social and cul-tural trends that affect the politics andeconomics of the West.

In his private life, Taniguchi is legalcounsel and corporate marketing attor-ney for City Bank. He is also a boardmember of Koga Engineering.

Joining Taniguchi as CSG-WESTExecutive Committee officers are IdahoSenate Majority Leader Bart Davis whois the new chair-elect, Oregon SenateDemocratic Leader Kate Brown whoserves as vice chair and NevadaAssembly Minority Leader Lynn

Hettrick who is the immediate past chair.Leadership positions in the organizationgenerally alternate between Republicansand Democrats.

Hawaii Sen. Brian Taniguchi to lead CSG-WEST in 2003

Spectrum: The Journal of StateGovernment seeks to be an honestobserver of the state governmentarena and a vehicle for expressing thenewest ideas and latest thinking onstate policies and institutions. Themission of Spectrum is to providereliable information and insightfulanalysis on public-policy issues to any-one whose interest in state govern-ment stretches beyond the limited,short-term goals of the status quo.

The Winter 2003 symposium consistsof in-depth analyses of 2002 legislative,executive and judicial elections bynoted experts.

• R. Doug Lewis, The ElectionCenter,“Trends in State Elections:2002 and Beyond”

• Tim Storey, National Conferenceof State Legislators, “2002 Legis-lative Elections”

• Thad Beyle, University of NorthCarolina,Chapel Hill,“2002 Guber-natorial Elections”

• Julia Hurst, National LieutenantGovernors Association, “2002Lieutenant Governors’ Elections”

• Matthew Bowdy, National Asso-ciation of State Treasurers, “2002State Treasurers’ Elections”

• M. Dane Waters, Initiative andReferendum Institute, “2002Initiatives and Referenda”

To subscribe to Spectrum, please call 1-(800)-800-1910 or visit www.csg.org.

SPECTRUM T H E J O U R N A L O F S T A T E G O V E R N M E N T

T H E C O U N C I L O F S TAT E G OV E R N M E N T S

The Council of State Governments

1933-2003

March 1933March 4At his presidential inaugural address,President Franklin D. Roosevelt utteredone of his most famous statements,“Theonly thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

March 9 Congress was called into a special sessionby FDR in order to begin the hundred daysof the development of The New Deal.TheNew Deal helped to propel the countryout of the Great Depression.

March 12President Roosevelt had his first radiobroadcast called the “fireside chat.” FDRwanted to take advantage of mass mediain order to calm the American peopledown during the Great Depression. FDRwent on to have around 30 more “chats”throughout his 12 years as president.

March 6Benjamin Meek Miller, governor ofAlabama (1931-1935), declared a bankingholiday in Alabama. Eight days later, FDRfollowed suit and declared a nationalbanking holiday.

The Council of StateGovernments 1933-2003

Serving State Governmentsfor 70 Years

conference calendar

This calendar lists meetings as desig-nated by CSG’s Annual MeetingCommittee. For details of a meeting,call the number listed. “CSG/” denotesaffiliate organizations of CSG. Visitwww.csg.org, for updates and moreextensive listings.

Other meetings have value to state offi-cials. Purchase a meeting listing bycalling 1 (800) 800-1910 or by email-ing [email protected]. Announce yourmeetings to thousands in the state gov-ernment market through an advertise-ment, a Web listing, or a banner ad inIn the News, CSG’s weekly electronicnewsletter. Get your free subscriptionto In the News at www.csg.org.

MARCH 2003

March 2-4 — CSG/National Assoc-iation of Government Labor Officials— Washington, D.C. — Hotel TBA.Contact Melinda Glazer at (202) 624-5460 or [email protected]

March 2-5 — CSG/National Assoc-iation of State Treasurers LegislativeConference — Washington, D.C. —Willard Inter-Continental Hotel.Contact Adnee Hamilton at (859) 244-8174 or [email protected] or visitwww.nast.net

March 11-13 — CSG/National YouthCourt Center/Developmental Ser-vices Group — Drug and YouthCourts Topical Training Seminar —San Diego, CA. Contact theDevelopmental Services Group Inc. at(877) GO-JAIBG.

March 31-April 4 — CSG/U.S. EPANational Biological Assessment andCriteria Workshop— Coeur d’Alene,ID — Couer d’Alene Hotel. ContactAmanda Mays at (859) 244-8236 [email protected]

APRIL 2003

April 23-25 — CSG/National Centerfor Youth Courts, “Youth Courts: AnImplementation Training Seminar,Specialized Training for OJPGrantees” — Washington, D.C. Cont-act [email protected] or (859) 244-8193 orvisit www.youthcourt.net.

MAY 2003

May 4-8 — CSG/Southern StateTreasurers & College Savings PlansNetwork Annual Conference —Buena Vista, FL— Disney’s CoronadoSprings Resort. Contact AdneeHamilton at (859) 244-8174 or [email protected] or visit www.nast.net.

May 3-7 — CSG/NASTD: TheAssociation for Telecommunicationsand Technology Professionals Serv-ing State Government EasternRegion Meeting— Charleston, WV—Embassy Suites. Contact Karen Brittonat (859) 244-8187 or [email protected]

May 15-18 — CSG Spring Committeeand Task Force Meetings — U.S. Virgin

Islands — Marriott Frenchman's Reef.Contact Wanda Hines at (859) 244-8103or [email protected]

May 18-21 — CSG/ NASTD Mid-western Region Meeting — JeffersonCity, MO) — Capitol Plaza Hotel.Contact Karen Britton at (859) 244-8187or [email protected]

JUNE 2003

May 31-June 4 — CSG/NASTDWestern Region Meeting — Coeurd’Alene, ID — The Coeur d’AleneResort. Contact Karen Britton at (859)244-8187 or [email protected]

June 17-19 — CSG/CSG Midwest/Midwestern Radioactive MaterialsTransportation Committee Meeting— Lincoln, NE. Contact Lisa Sattler at(920) 803-9976 or [email protected]

June 21-25 — CSG/National Assoc-iation of State FacilitiesAdministrators Annual Conference& Tradeshow — Overland Park, KS— Sheraton Overland Park Hotel.Contact Marcia Stone at (859) 244-8181 or [email protected]

June 21-25 — CSG/ NASTD SouthernRegion Summer Meeting —Covington, KY— Embassy Suites HotelRiver Center. Contact Karen Britton at(859) 244-8187 or [email protected]

JULY 2003

July 11-15 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference Ninth AnnualBowhay Institute for LegislativeLeadership Development — Madison,WI — Fluno Center for ExecutiveEducation. Contact Laura Tomaka at(630) 810-0210 or [email protected]

July 15-20 — CSG/National LieutenantGovernors Association Annual Meeting— Little Rock, AK — Peabody Hotel. Visitwww.nlga.us or contact Julia Hurst [email protected] or(859) 244-8111

July 19-22 — CSG/National Assoc-iation of State Personnel ExecutivesAnnual Meeting — Portland, ME —Eastland Park Hotel, (207) 775-5411 or(888) 671-8008. Contact Leslie Scott at(859) 244-8182 or [email protected].

July 21-25 — National Conference ofState Legislatures Annual Meeting—San Francisco, CA— Hotel TBA

July 29-August 1 — CSG/CSG-WESTAnnual Meeting — Honolulu, HI —Hilton Hawaiian Village. ContactCheryl Duvachelle at (916) 553-4423 [email protected]

AUGUST 2003August 9-13 — CSG/SouthernLegislative Conference AnnualMeeting — Fort Worth, TX — TheRenaissance Worthington Hotel andThe Radisson Plaza Hotel. ContactNai Vienthongsuk at (404) 266-1271or [email protected] or visit www.slcat-lanta.org

August 16-19 — National GovernorsAssociation Annual Meeting —Indianapolis, IN. Contact SusanDotchin at (202) 624-5327

August 17-20 — CSG/EasternRegional Conference AnnualMeeting — San Juan, PR — CaribeHilton. Contact Pam Stanley at (212)912-0128 or [email protected] orvisit www.csgeast.org

August 24-27 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference 58th AnnualMeeting — Milwaukee, WI — HyattRegency Milwaukee. Contact MikeMcCabe at (630) 810-0210 or [email protected]

SEPTEMBER 2003

September 6-10 — CSG/NationalEmergency Management Associa-tion Annual Conference — Seattle,WA — Elliot Grand Hyatt. Visitwww.nemaweb.org

September 6-11 — CSG/NASTDAnnual Conference and Trade Show— St. Louis, MO — Hyatt Regency St.Louis at Union Station. Contact KarenBritton at (859) 244-8187 or [email protected]

September 7-11 — CSG/NationalAssociation of State Treasurers &National Association of UnclaimedProperty Administrators AnnualConference — Colorado Springs, CO— The Broadmoor Hotel. ContactAdnee Hamilton at (859) 244-8174 or [email protected] or visitwww.nast.net.

September 13-18 — CSG Henry TollFellowship Program— Lexington, KY.— Hilton Suites Lexington — ContactAllison Spurrier at (859) 244-8249 [email protected] for applications

September 21-23 — CSG/SouthernGovernors' Association AnnualMeeting — Charleston, WV — HotelTBA. Contact Liz Purdy at (202) 624-5897 or [email protected]

OCTOBER 2003

October 14-17 — CSG/CSG-WESTWestern Legislative Academy —Colorado Springs, CO — DoubletreeHotel. Contact Cheryl Duvachelle at(916) 553-4423 or [email protected]

October 18 — CSG/CSG-WESTExecutive Committee Meeting —Colorado Springs, CO — DoubletreeHotel. Contact Cheryl Duvachelle at(916) 553-4423 or [email protected]

October 23-26 — CSG Annual StateTrends and Leadership Forum —Pittsburgh, PA — Hilton Pittsburgh.Visit www.csg.org or contact Wanda Hines at (859) 244-8103 [email protected]

NOVEMBER 2003November 7-11 — CSG/SLC FallLegislative Issues Conference —

Point Clear, AL— Marriott Grand HotelResort and Golf Club. Contact NaiVienthongsuk at (404) [email protected] or visitwww.slcatlanta.org.

FEBRUARY 2004

February 21-24 — NationalGovernors Association WinterMeeting — Washington, D.C. —Hotel TBA. Contact Susan Dotchin at(202) 624-5327

JUNE 2004

June 26-July 1 — CSG Henry TollFellowship Program — Lexington,KY — Hilton Suites Lexington Green.Contact Allison Spurrier at (859) 244-8249 or [email protected].

JULY 2004July 11-14 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference 59th AnnualMeeting— Des Moines, IA— Marriott.Contact Mike McCabe at (630) [email protected]

July 18-25 — National Conference ofState Legislatures Annual Meeting—Salt Lake City, UT — Hotel TBA

July 28-August 1 — AmericanLegislative Exchange Council AnnualMeeting — Seattle, WA— Hotel TBA

July 31-August 3 — National GovernorsAssociation Annual Meeting — Seattle,WA — Hotel TBA. Contact SusanDotchin at (202) 624-5327

AUGUST 2004

August 14-18 — CSG/SouthernLegislative Conference AnnualMeeting — Little Rock, AR — HotelTBA. Contact Nai Vienthongsuk at(404) 266-1271 [email protected] or visitwww.slcatlanta.org

SEPTEMBER 2004

September 25-29 — CSG Annual StateTrends and Leadership Forum —Anchorage, AK — Hotel TBA. Visitwww.csg.org or contact Wanda Hines(859) 244-8103 or [email protected]

FEBRUARY 2005

February 26-March 1 — NationalGovernors Association Winter Meeting— Washington, D.C. — Hotel TBA.Contact Susan Dotchin at (202) 624-5327

JULY 2005

July 30-August 3 — CSG/SouthernLegislative Conference Annual Meet-ing — Mobile, AL — Hotel TBA.Contact Nai Vienthongsuk at (404) 266-1271 or [email protected] orvisit www.slcat-lanta.org

July 31-August 3 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference 60th AnnualMeeting — Regina, Saskatchewan,Canada — Delta Regina Hotel. ContactMike McCabe at (630) 810-0210 [email protected]


Aimed at developing leaders from all three branches of state government, this prestigiousprogram and intellectual boot camp assists leaders by providing information and per-spectives not available in the course of everyday public service.

The program was named for Henry Wolcott Toll, CSG’s founding father and Coloradostate senator. He was a tireless visionary, an innovative champion of state government, acourageous opponent of racism, and a spirited statesman – in other words, a leader.

This is a leadership development program that brings high-level speakers to stimulate per-sonal assessment and growth, sessions that inspire new team-building skills and provideopportunities to re-evaluate your core beliefs about why you decided to become a stateofficial in the first place.

The 2003 Toll Fellowship Program will be held on September 13-18, 2003, in Lexington,Kentucky. Applications are due March 28, 2003.

If you are interested in receiving an application or more information about the program,please contact Allison Spurrier at (859) 244-8249 or [email protected] can also findinformation on our web site at www.csg.org.

state government news - march 2003 - complete issue (2 mb)

Documents