A bill to restrict how Alabama state agencies may issue environmental regulations was approved by a state Senate committee on Tuesday.

Senate Bill 71, sponsored by Sen. Donnie Chesteen, R-Geneva, would prohibit state agencies from adopting a rule to establish environmental protection standards more stringent than federal law or regulations.

The bill would also provide that upon the absence of a federal law or regulation on an environmental matter, no state agencies may adopt a rule “unless the rule is based on the best available science and the weight of scientific evidence.”

Under the bill, regulations would have to be based on site-specific studies or peer-reviewed studies in a journal or government report. However, under SB71, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management would also not be required to use values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS, in developing numeric thresholds for water pollutants.

During the Alabama Senate County and Municipal Government Committee’s public hearing on the legislation, two attendees spoke in favor of and two spoke against Chesteen’s bill.

President and CEO of Manufacture Alabama John Barganier said the legislation would promote greater clarity for businesses seeking to comply with ADEM standards.

“We believe that a striking balance between the best available science and regulatory matters is the best way to balance environmental stewardship and economic development,” Barganier said.

“Our members spend millions of millions of dollars, each and every year, on environmental compliance and investment,” he added. “But also, we believe that a bill like this will create more consistency and reliability in that environment for our companies who’ve invested much in the state.”

Lawyer, Mark Behrens, speaking on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, described Chesteen’s bill as taking “a very commonsense approach.”

“The legislation provides great flexibility for the director here in Alabama to do what is in Alabama’s interest. The Alabama rule can go up to the federal rule, and it can go down,” he said.

“The only thing that the bill would say is if there is a companion federal rule in an area, the rule can’t go beyond that, and that’s because it’s trying to restore some uniformity in the United States, so manufacturers and farmers are not living in a patchwork system,” Behrens added.

Luke Kiszla, government affairs director for the Mobile Baykeeper spoke against the bill, arguing it undermines ADEM’s ability to act effectively as a state agency.

“At the start of this nation, when we were debating the core principles of federalism, people often remember the debate about the strength of the central, federal government. People often forget the other flip side of that coin, the need for a strong state government,” Kiszla said. “I struggle to understand why this bill links Alabama’s power to defend its citizens’ rights, with what the federal government is doing.”

“I’ll be honest, we can debate sound science all day and night. I’m probably not the person to have that debate, given that I’m not a scientist,” he added. “But what completely renders us unable to have that debate about what sound science is, what sound science is not, what renders us unable to do that is when we voluntarily surrender our powers to defend our rights.”

Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Sarah Stokes, similarly, described the legislation as an attempt at restricting ADEM’s autonomy.

“I make a bet that you know somebody who’s had cancer and they don’t know where they got that cancer. We all do, unfortunately, and this is the reason that environmental health and safety groups are opposed to SB71,” Stokes said.

Stokes alleged Chesteen’s bill was drafted in response to ADEM agreeing last June to update standards for limiting 12 toxic and carcinogenic substances in state waterways, following a push from environmental groups to update ADEM regulations to meet IRIS standards released in 2015.

“The groups requested that ADEM ratchet down those standards and ADEM agreed that they should do that, in fact, the environmental management committee that is appointed by the governor agreed that our toxic standards should be lower,” she said. “But industrial groups didn’t like ADEM’s ruling so know they are proposing a bill that would keep these toxic standards at harmful levels.”

Chesteen was also met with opposition to his bill from Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham.

Coleman-Madison told the committee that, although the bill may make it easier for businesses looking to comply with ADEM or EPA regulations, she believes industrial pollution continues to negatively impact members of her district, despite past state attempts to regulate polluters.

“I have to look at the people that I represent and in places like North Birmingham and Terrance City and even in the Black Belt counties, where I know these things are still happening, and if we pass this we are basically in essence telling these people we really don’t care about your health, we don’t care about your future, we don’t care about the kids and their welfare,” Coleman-Madison said.

An amendment, which Chesteen said “clarifies the implementation of rules and reinforces the state flexibility,” was adopted by the committee.

Senator Chris Elliott, R-Daphne, asked to speak with Chesteen regarding the amendment before the bill is voted on by the Senate.

“[The amendment] preserves some optionality I’d like to look into a bit more. I think it’s headed a little bit more to get my support,” Elliott said. “I think it’s always interesting when you have an environmentalist making a state’s rights argument. That’s pretty novel and I’m a big states’ rights guy.”

The committee voted 5-2 to give the legislation a favorable report, with Coleman-Madison and Elliot opposed.

Alongside SELC, the legislation has drawn opposition from the Alabama Rivers Alliance. Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, the alliance released statements condemning the bill, and its House partner legislation, HB162, carried by Representative Troy Stubbs, R-Wetumpka.

“HB162 and SB71 are misguided attempts to roll back the clock that blatantly ignore the intent of the Clean Water Act,” the alliance wrote.

“These bills essentially say that the federal government’s one-size fits all approach to protecting water, air and land is preferable to decisions made by our own Alabamians about what is best for our state,” the organization continued. “The definition of ‘best available science’ in HB162/ SB71 ignores  studies in public health and epidemiology that rely on statistical methods, animal surrogates, and other widely accepted methods.”

“No placebo-controlled double blind studies prove that lead exposure ‘causes’ developmental neurotoxicity or that smoking ‘causes’ cancer, but decades of research demonstrate those substances are worthy of regulation,” ARA added.

SB71 will now advance to the Senate for a complete vote.