Quashing
talk that the Ohio Division of Wildlife is no longer actively engaged
in stream pollution cases, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources
defended both agency’s performance in protecting the environment.
The
subject recently bubbled to the surface internally that the Wildlife
Division has been ordered to stay away from investigating and
enforcing reported stream pollution incidents. This alleged hands-off
order was particularly addressed regarding alleged violations
involving agricultural practices, hinting that the Natural Resources
Department did not want to rile the state’s powerful farming
interests.
Fuel
to the fire came recently with the issuance of press release issued
by the Ohio Attorney General’s office.
That
September 20th Ohio Attorney General communique stated
that “… a Crawford County man was sentenced for dumping 600
gallons of ammonia-contaminated water that ended up in a local
waterway, causing a fish kill.
“Wesley
Christman, 62, of Monnett, was ordered to pay a $1,500 fine, complete
four years of probation, and not commit any further environmental
offenses.”
The
release goes on to say that Christman “… then watched the water
flow into a storm sewer, knowing the contaminated water would then
move into Allen Run, a tributary of the Little Scioto River. The
polluted water ultimately caused a fish kill.”
Yet
the Ohio Attorney General’s release concluded with the statement
how “Agents with the Attorney General's Bureau of Criminal
Investigation (BCI) and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
investigated the case.”
Missing
in the whole and in part of the release, though, was the fact that
Ohio Division of Wildlife officers were likewise deeply committed to
the case.
“The
Division of Wildlife was also involved in the Ohio EPA
investigation, which was occurring simultaneously,
regarding the pollution case. The Ohio EPA pursued
charges against the individual involved in the spill
and Wildlife staff were prepared to testify in this
case,” said Natural Resources Department spokesman,
Matt Eiselstein.
Thus, said, Eiselstein, the Wildlife Division similarly investigated the fish kill and subsequently “received $14,451 from the farm co-op involved in this incident.”
Eiselstein said too that claims about the Wildlife Division abdicating its pollution investigation activity are untrue, nothing that Ohio law still designates that agency as the lead one in such work.
That requirement is channeled in chapters 1531 and 1533 of the Ohio Revised Code, states the agency’s “Pollution Policy” on the subject.
“In addition, the Division of Wildlife was designated in 1968 by the General Assembly to have statewide jurisdiction in the enforcement of the stream litter law. Sections 1531.29 and 3767.32 of the ORC prohibit placing debris in or along streams or lakes. Investigation of wild animals killed by stream pollution and stream litter enforcement are both high priority programs in the Division,” the “Pollution Policy” document reads as well.
As a result, said Eiselstein, “no duties were transferred,” while the Wildlife Division officers also investigated the fish kill “and collected monies for the investigation and animals killed.”
“They (Wildlife Division officers) also assisted Ohio EPA in the prosecution of the pollution case,” Eiselstein said.
- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischk@Ameritech.net
Thus, said, Eiselstein, the Wildlife Division similarly investigated the fish kill and subsequently “received $14,451 from the farm co-op involved in this incident.”
Eiselstein said too that claims about the Wildlife Division abdicating its pollution investigation activity are untrue, nothing that Ohio law still designates that agency as the lead one in such work.
That requirement is channeled in chapters 1531 and 1533 of the Ohio Revised Code, states the agency’s “Pollution Policy” on the subject.
“In addition, the Division of Wildlife was designated in 1968 by the General Assembly to have statewide jurisdiction in the enforcement of the stream litter law. Sections 1531.29 and 3767.32 of the ORC prohibit placing debris in or along streams or lakes. Investigation of wild animals killed by stream pollution and stream litter enforcement are both high priority programs in the Division,” the “Pollution Policy” document reads as well.
As a result, said Eiselstein, “no duties were transferred,” while the Wildlife Division officers also investigated the fish kill “and collected monies for the investigation and animals killed.”
“They (Wildlife Division officers) also assisted Ohio EPA in the prosecution of the pollution case,” Eiselstein said.
- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischk@Ameritech.net
No comments:
Post a Comment