Environmentalists and business interests agreed on a bill to begin protecting Illinois' groundwater. The measure was sent to the governor, and aides said on August 18 that Thompson would sign the bill.

It was agreed to by everybody and loved by nobody, which I guess indicates it was a pretty good bill," said Sid Marder, who represented the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce in the talks. Joanna Hoelscher, who represented Citizens for a Better Environment, agreed: "It's a good start. There were some pretty tough negotiations."

The bill had its genesis in 1984 legislation sponsored by Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-26, Chicago) that directed the state to come up with a plan for protecting groundwater. The plan presented by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in 1986 came under fire from environmentalists as a "do nothing plan." Thompson appointed a task force to study the issue, and in April his plan was introduced as a bill.

But the administration bill never got out of the Senate. What passed was the business-supported bill that called for more studies. When it arrived in the House, Rep. James McPike (D-112, Alton) sat both sides down and negotiations began in earnest. Marder said business had a negotiating position after passing its bill through the Senate. Hoelscher said environmentalists had a position because of McPike.

As sent to the governor the bill (S.B. 1482) would:

• Establish setbacks between wellheads and potential pollution sources, for both new wells and new sources.

• Establish a groundwater monitoring program and mapping of the recharge areas through which rain is filtered to replenish groundwater supplies.

• Authorize establishment of regulations to protect the recharge areas.

• Set standards for storing fertilizer and road salt, and similar activities, not now regulated by the federal government.

• Create an interagency coordinating committee and a groundwater advisory council.

Marder said his group's concern was that business not be hit with overlapping regulations — from both the state and federal governments. The administration bill, he said, would have regulated large underground tanks. Federal law already covers those, he says. The final bill brings smaller underground tanks under state regulation, something Marder says all can live with.

Hoelscher says that after the early setbacks, environmentalists were pleased with the outcome: "The fact we were able to pass that bill when so much else failed in terms of socially progressive legislation is significant," she says.

Michael D. Klemens