When it comes to regulations, there’s a balance that needs to be met. It’s a fine balance, that between protecting the residents and ecosystems of the state, yet giving business entities the ability to create jobs and boost the economy without a stranglehold of regulations.

To address that, it seems there’s been a shift in Raleigh. But perhaps there was too much of a shift, when the House last week voted to make major changes to 1971 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The purpose for SEPA is make sure that when it comes to state spending and lands, potential harmful effects on the environment, and on North Carolinians, are evaluated before a project is embarked upon. Two good examples of this are landfills and waterwater-treatment plants. What House Bill 795 essentially does is put a cap on what amount of state spending requires any kind of review. Currently, impact studies need to be done for any project using state lands and funds. Should HB 795 become law, only projects costing over $10 million would require a closer look.

The bill was passed by a 74-41 vote in the House — a vote largely split along party lines — then promptly sent to the Senate, where it passed its first reading. But a Republican from Hendersonville, Rep. Chuck McGrady, made it clear in debate on the House floor that the authors of the bill are masking their true intent: to repeal, and not reform, SEPA, a state law designed to make state spending transparent, and make sure both the public and state agencies know about a given project’s environmental impact. With a cap of $10 million in place, many projects could take place without any type of environmental oversight, without the public’s knowledge, without even the knowledge of the state agencies that are in place to make sure the health of the land, water, air and people of North Carolina aren’t jeopardized. Even when projects do pass the $10 million threshold, another part of the bill states that only direct environmental impact will be evaluated. There will be no speculation about whether a project could impact health and the environment; no consultation of secondary sources and no taking into account how a previous project of the same caliber affected health/environment if that project took place in another state.

However, according to one of the sponsors of the legislation, Rep. Mike Hager, that’s what the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is for: there are air and water quality permitting requirements. Even Tom Reeder, DENR assistant secretary, doesn’t think HB 795 is a good idea, and Reeder has a proven track record for siding with business interests.

“There could possibly be some negative consequences to the state water infrastructure program, our waste water and drinking water revolving loan fund program,” Reeder told the House Environment Committee.

On the local front, an Administrative Judge recently found that DENR was right to allow a Martin Marietta permit to discharge up to 12,000,000 gallons of fresh water per day — wastewater used in the mining process — into Blounts Creek, regardless of the fact that it would change the ecosystem for the creek. He ruled that DENR was correct in issuing the permit because the complainants (environmental advocacy organization Sound Rivers, formerly the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, and two business owners whose businesses are based on fishing the Blounts Creek waters) were not “aggrieved.” What that essentially means is that if an environment hasn’t been damaged or destroyed yet, no one, not any North Carolina taxpaying resident, has any cause to argue against the state.

It’s a wait and see, “if there’s a mess, we’ll clean it up later” approach to the environment, and that doesn’t mean good things for this state, its beauty and its health — especially when no one knows it’s going on. Especially when the law is saying the people can’t object until it’s over and done with.