The House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a measure limiting state agencies from adopting environmental regulations stricter than federal standards after extended debate and multiple failed amendments from Democratic lawmakers.
Lawmakers passed the bill 68-34 after nearly two hours of questions and discussion on the House floor. Senate Bill 71, sponsored by Senator Donnie Chesteen, Republican of Geneva, and carried in the House by Representative Troy Stubbs, Republican of Wetumpka, is known as the “sound science” bill.
Senate Bill 71 prohibits state agencies from implementing environmental rules more stringent than federal regulations. If no federal regulation exists on an issue, the bill requires agencies to demonstrate a “direct causal link” to “manifest bodily harm” in humans before adopting new rules.
Stubbs said the bill would create predictability and rein in regulatory costs.
“My constituents are concerned with the cost of living,” Stubbs said. “Regulations drive the cost of living.”
During debate, Democratic members pressed Stubbs on the bill’s language, particularly its definition of “manifest bodily harm.” The bill defines the term as a presently existing and diagnosable injury or disease and says harm cannot be based solely on substance detection in the body or an increased risk of disease.
Representative Neil Rafferty, Democrat of Birmingham, said the legislation could restrict agencies from acting on scientific evidence before residents become ill.
“You’re using sound science, defining sound science, to gut our ability to use sound science in our regulations,” Rafferty said.
Representative Chris England, Democrat of Tuscaloosa, criticized the bill’s intent and warned it could leave residents vulnerable to environmental harm.
“You said it best when you started, that this isn’t necessarily about regulating the environment as much as it is, creating a business-friendly environment. And when any agency can’t react quickly, can’t be nimble, what you’ve created, essentially, is that we are test subjects, we are a Petri dish,” England said.
Other Democrats said the bill reverses a longstanding public health principle of preventing harm before it occurs. They said requiring proof of existing injury sets a high evidentiary threshold that could delay action on contaminants in soil, air or water.
Lawmakers offered several amendments during debate. One amendment from Representative Sam Jones, Democrat of Mobile, would have removed the word “direct” from the “direct causal link” requirement. Another amendment from Representative Adline Clarke, Democrat of Mobile, sought to exempt rules from the Department of Agriculture and Industries and the Department of Public Health. A third amendment from Representative Marilyn Lands, Democrat of Huntsville, would have clarified that reducing exposure to substances already classified as carcinogens by federal or international authorities qualifies as preventing harm under the bill.
The Republican majority tabled all three amendments.
Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Manufacture Alabama, supported the measure, saying it would provide consistency across states and create a more predictable regulatory environment for economic growth.
Stubbs said the bill includes an emergency rule provision allowing agencies to act quickly in urgent situations.
William Strickland, executive director of Mobile Baykeeper, said the legislation weakens Alabama’s ability to safeguard water and public health.
“Thousands of people called and wrote their elected officials begging them to vote no. Several coastal representatives either voted no or abstained, which is nice. But the system is designed to make us give up and hand our power over to those who can afford dozens of lobbyists. The people of coastal Alabama are going to resist the temptation to give up and keep fighting for the waters, fish, shrimp, oysters, and the families who depend on them,” Strickland said.
The bill now returns to the Senate for final action before going to the governor’s desk.
