CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Senate Majority Leader John Unger (D-Berkeley) said he sees clear differences between Governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s proposed bill that’s designed to better protect water resources in West Virginia and the bill the Senate is considering that’s meant to do the same.

Unger said the Senate bill, which was introduced last week and was pending in the Senate Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday, takes a broad approach to regulations for chemical storage facilities, those similar to the site of the Jan. 9 chemical leak on the Elk River that fouled the water supply for more than 300,000 West Virginia American Water customers.

“If you have an above ground storage facility of liquids, then you need to register and have regular inspections,” Unger explained.

“It doesn’t matter where you are in West Virginia.  It doesn’t matter what you have in that facility,” he said of the new requirements that, as the Senate is proposing, would apply to locations that do not already fall under state inspection regulations.

In Governor Earl Ray Tomblin’s proposed West Virginia Source Protection Act, which he detailed at the State Capitol on Monday, only those storing chemicals in areas categorized as being zones of “critical concern,” including locations upstream from water intakes, would be subjected to registration requirements and annual inspections.

Randy Huffman, secretary of the state Department of Environmental Protection, said he supports Governor Tomblin’s proposal because of those focus areas.

“It doesn’t make sense to me to spend the state’s resources putting forth the same amount of time and effort into a facility that is not likely to cause a problem, even if it were to leak, than it is to focus our time and energy in those zones of critical concern,” said Huffman.

He said he thinks the Tomblin proposal will prevent chemical leaks, like this month’s leak of crude MCHM at Freedom Industries in Charleston.

“The key to this legislation, the key to preventing something like this from happening again, is this certification, done on annual basis, it absolutely would have prevented the situation that happened last week,” said Huffman.

But, Unger said, he thinks the Senate bill, SB 373, would be more effective since, he claimed, it places the importance of water ahead of the importance of industry.  “It’s a fundamental policy decision that we have.  Should every facility that’s holding some type of liquid be registered and inspected or should we cherry pick and spot check?”

“Everybody wants their water protected in West Virginia and we just have to have the public debate,” Unger said on Tuesday’s MetroNews “Talkline.”

The 2014 Regular Legislative Session continues through Saturday, March 8.

bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • Rosetta

    Hi there, this weekend is good in support of me, for thhe reason thast this time i am reading this wonderful educational piece
    of writing here at my residence.

    my homepage - hertfordshire web design

  • Debbie

    What defines an area of "critical concern"? Are not all of the people of WV important to the Governor? Somebody lives near every one of the storage tanks we have here in the state. All chemical storage and production places are of critical concern since a leak from any of them could hurt someone in some way. And to add even more concern is recently learning of all the chemicals that have almost no testing as to their effects on human life. Strong regulations are needed here in WV

  • Annie Otto

    Water is life! All Water needs to be protected.

    I cannot believe, there is not a map showing all locations for holding tanks and that they are not inspected on a regular basis.

    This is a must, regardless what it takes!! NOTHING lives-------without clean water.

  • Serenity Firefly

    Sounds like the Senate bill is comprehensive. The other proposal sounds like it is trying to respond to public opinion in the narrowest possible way.

    I prefer the comprehensive version.

    The alternative runs the risk of failing to properly define critical areas, or of failing to keep up as knowledge and conditions change.

    Agreed, water *should* be ahead of industry as we protect out what's important. It always should have been.

  • Aaron

    As I've said before, current regulations already cover this issue. What needs changes is the requirement for on site inspections.

    Other than that, there is no reason to waste taxpayer dollars and government resources on unneeded inspections and duplicate regulations.

  • Rodney Hytonen

    The problem with regulation is, its governing
    bodies -government - are WAY too small, and thus far too easy to "capture" (= BRINE ad CORRUPT) by a rogue, irresponsible and wildly profitable industry like ENERGY-

    which needs nationalizing anyway so it prioritizes the good of the country and the people, over PROFIT.

  • Ed Wouldn't

    I have to go with the Senate on this one. Just because a facility is outside some "zone" doesn't mean a mishap wouldn't affect someone's drinking water or have some other adverse consequence.

    The proposal isn't onerous, it's common sense.

    Maybe that's the problem.