A bill that would limit Alabama’s ability to adopt environmental regulations stricter than federal standards sparked lively debate, with lawmakers warning it could weaken protections for communities already facing pollution and public health risks.
Senate Bill 71, introduced by Senator Donnie Chesteen, R-Geneva, would prohibit the Alabama Department of Environmental Management from adopting or enforcing rules that exceed federal environmental standards when a corresponding federal regulation exists.
The bill states that ADEM may not “adopt or amend any rule that is more stringent than, or exceeds the requirements of, a corresponding federal law or regulation,” though it allows the agency to act in areas where no federal standard exists and preserves its authority to issue emergency rules.
Chesteen said the legislation is intended to provide regulatory certainty and align state rules with federal law.
Democrat opponents countered that the measure would limit the state’s ability to respond to localized environmental hazards, particularly in marginalized communities. Senator Linda Coleman-Madison, D-Birmingham, described ongoing litigation over industrial facilities in North Birmingham, saying residents have repeatedly been forced to turn to the courts when companies fail to comply with environmental requirements.
“You don’t have any opportunity to target and to make those bad actors accountable for what they’re doing,” said Coleman-Madison. “Every year, when this particular plant permits come up, we have to go to court… because they don’t follow the rules.”
Concerns were also raised about illegal dumping, tire fires and airborne pollutants affecting residents who are not employed by industrial facilities but live nearby.
Coleman-Madison attempted to address those concerns by offering an amendment as a safeguard for residents exposed indirectly to pollution rather than through direct employment, but it failed to gain enough support during the floor vote. After a roll call, the amendment was rejected 7-25, allowing the bill to move forward without additional protections tied to localized health impacts.
“It’s the same thing in this situation where many people will be exposed to things, not working in a factory, but airborne,” said Coleman-Madison. “It’s going to impact their health.”
Chesteen responded that ADEM would still retain emergency authority to intervene when public health is at risk. One senator said the department has emergency rules that allow it to “go in and directly address what the issue is” without going through the normal rulemaking process, before returning to standard regulatory procedures.
Discussion also focused on the bill’s treatment of scientific standards. SB71 specifies that ADEM is not required to use values from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System when developing numeric water quality criteria. Chesteen said that IRIS assessments have become politicized and can delay regulatory action, while critics questioned why state regulators would be discouraged from relying on EPA risk assessments if federal standards are meant to serve as the benchmark. Chesteen also said that ADEM is neutral on the bill.
“This is a pro-business Alabama bill,” said Senator Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro. “You’re listening to business people who don’t know what they’re talking about. This is not science.”
Singleton warned that limiting ADEM’s flexibility during a period of weaker federal enforcement could have lasting consequences.
“It’s gonna help economic development, because they’ll be able to do what they want to do. They don’t want to go through the stringent things to make sure that we have a safe environment. I want business to flow, too. We can flow and flourish in this state without compromising our ecosystem, without compromising our water system,” said Singleton.
The bill was initially moved to be carried over for further discussion. Lawmakers came back to the bill later, at which point it was passed 27-7. Before final passage, Senator Vivian Davis-Figures, D-Mobile, asked Chesteen where this bill originated from. Chesteen said a group approached him about the issue, but he declined to name the group.
SB71 now moves to the House of Representatives for further consideration.
