Have you ever noticed the "rusting" spruce on Camel's Hump, or the low lying haze that lingers over Lake Champlain on a summer's day? Both are caused by NOX or ozone pollution.

Clearly there is cause for concern. Ozone pollution is a public health hazard, and it is causing serious damage to Vermont's forests and natural resources. Signs of ozone damage are affecting Vermont native species like white ash, white pine, black cherry and sugar maple. Each summer we come close to violating federal air quality standards because of ozone pollution levels.

Why, then, is the Agency of Natural Resources pitching a NOX offset waiver which could add many more tons of new ozone pollution to Vermont's air? This week I joined environmental groups and citizens to serve notice to the Agency that the current proposal is not acceptable. The Agency must either withdraw the waiver request and reapply with a plan to reduce pollution or work with my Committee to incorporate a pollution reduction strategy in the current proposal. Either way, the Agency must provide for full public participation.

There are two big problems with the Agency's current plan. First, it allows more ozone pollution from new and existing sources like industrial plants and power generating facilities without a roadmap in place to reduce pollution from other sources.

Second, until recently neither the public nor the legislative committees were informed or included in this major policy decision. So this week the Senate Natural Resources Committee held a public forum to bring Vermonters into the loop. From Grand Isle to Danby, the citizens who attended opposed the waiver plan unless it meant real reductions in pollution and assurances that power plants would not be allowed to spew greater emissions into the air that we breathe.

Secretary John Kassel stayed through the hearing to listen to every last concern. And he agreed to work with the Committee to craft solutions. Now we must decide to withdraw the waiver and start over or to craft legislation that will reduce pollution. Either proposal should meet three goals. First, it must require any waiver or change in air quality regulations to provide a net reduction in pollution and emissions that is both verifiable and sustainable. Second, it must require proposals to be developed in an open public process. And third, it must assure any new development to be balanced by pollution reduction designed and evaluated to maximize economic benefit to Vermonters.

In the coming weeks we will be working with the Secretary to achieve these goals. Many thanks to those who spoke up for Vermont's air quality. By the end of this legislative session I hope that every person in this state will breathe easier knowing that there is a new plan in place to reduce pollution and improve air quality.

3/27/00