X

Stefanik is no friend of the river

Posted 2/23/17

To the Editor: Recently, Representative Elise Stefanik of District 21 attended a gathering held by the advocacy group Save the River, which was formed to “protect the ecological Integrity of the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Stefanik is no friend of the river

Posted

To the Editor:

Recently, Representative Elise Stefanik of District 21 attended a gathering held by the advocacy group Save the River, which was formed to “protect the ecological Integrity of the Upper St. Lawrence River.” While Save the River has done admirable work, I question their decision to award Stefanik the “Friend of the River” title.

Stefanik has a weak environmental voting record, as evidenced by her 9 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Her vote to eliminate the Stream Protection Rule, which happened two days prior to receiving her title, illustrates her disregard for the environment. This rule was implemented to prevent coalmining debris containing heavy metals from being dumped into local streams and waterways. This is a good thing because this toxic waste has been found to harm both the ecosystems and humans living nearby.

It is hard to understand why a “Friend of the River” would vote for such a policy. Stefanik is notoriously hard for her constituents to reach, but my many calls to her staffers yielded two likely explanations for her vote.

The first reason was that she disliked President Obama’s use of an executive order to implement the rule. Instead, she would prefer the rule be vetted by congress so that it could be run past all constituents instead of being voiced as a mandate. But why hasn’t she espoused this rationale for all executive orders? Besides Trump’s immigration ban, Stefanik has not taken this position on any of his executive orders. She is therefore protesting executive orders on substantive grounds, not procedural grounds. A multi-billion dollar, taxpayer funded wall? She’ll let it slide. But protecting streams from coal waste? This is the kind of executive overreach that Stefanik just won’t abide!

The second justification was that the Stream Protection Rule’s regulations hurt the coal industry by placing it under undue constraint. In other words, the profits of coal companies are more important than the continued purity of national waterways. Always remember: “regulation” is another word for “protection.” Removing regulations means removing protections that keep us safe. Are there unnecessary protections? Absolutely. Is keeping heavy metals out of waterways unnecessary? No.

Save the River missed a crucial opportunity to hold Stefanik accountable for her voting record. Instead, they rewarded her for it. If this is what a friend of the river looks like, I shudder to envision a foe.

Matt Manierre

Potsdam