Brad Linder: In your view what are some of the most important issues facing Pennsylvania and Pennsylvanians?

Ed Rendell: There are a tremendous amount of environmental issues that are on the table. With Growing Greener being cut dramatically by Governor Schweiker in his proposed budget for this year and next, or for the current operating year and the next year. With the whole future of Growing Greener in doubt. With our mine reclamation and burning oil capping programs moving so slowly. With PENNVEST basically running low on funding for things we need to do with our water and sewer systems in Pennsylvania. With the farmland preservation program out of money and with the open space preservation money basically out of money. With watershed restoration programs underfunded, we have an awful lot of problems, and I believe that we have to move fairly decisively to dedicate significant funding to deal with all of those problems.

BL: Let's take two of the biggest issues one at a time. First let's talk about trash. Pennsylvania's the number one importer of trash in the country, and there's current legislation that's being stalled on a moratorium on landfill expansion. There's talk about imposing tipping fees to get money for these programs. What's your view, what's your plan?

ER As everyone knows, the interstate commerce clause makes it impossible for us to pass a law forbidding out of state trash to come into Pennsylvania. I think a moratorium probably is legal, and we should probably for a short period of time impose a moratorium so that we don't permit any additional landfill permits for the time being, so we don't exacerbate the problem. But in the long run we're not going to be able to keep out of state trash away from Pennsylvania.

ER: But I believe we should do two things. Number one I think we should impose a fee or a tax on the transportation of trash per mile. Now that would apply to in-state haulers as well as out-of-state haulers, but obviously out-of-state haulers would pay the most significant fees. I believe that would be constitutional, and it might discourage some of the importation of trash to Pennsylvania.

ER: And secondly, I would impose a significant state landfill tipping fee and use that tipping fee to fund the billion dollar bond issue that I want to create to produce the funds for all of the environmental challenges that we just went over. I think if we're going to have to landfill trash, and I think we basically have to, we might as well get the upside for it and dedicate that upside to improving the environment in so many different ways.

BL: How does your conservation program differ from the current Growing Greener program, or from what Bob Casey's proposing, which is a 1.2 billion dollar program.

ER: I think basically Mr. Casey and I are proposing the same programs. It's much different from the current Growing Greener program, because Growing Greener is out of funds. Growing Greener doesn't do anything for PENNVEST. Growing Greener doesn't produce money for farmland preservation or open space preservation. I think it's a more expansive program number one, and number two it guarantees Growing Greener will stay in existence for the next seven or eight years.

BL: This idea of landfill tipping fees, it presents dedicated funding, but at the same time it might run the risk, some would say, of pitting environmentalists against environmentalists. Those who want to discourage trash and those who want the money for conservation programs.

ER: If there was a way to discourage trash constitutionally, I would sure as heck take a hard look at it. I don't think there is. So I don't think there's a choice here. I think it is... at least let's get some benefit out of the land filling we do, and some environmental benefit, not to the general fund, but to specifically fund environmental conservation. And by the way, increased tipping fees, along with my tax on per mile transportation of trash, I think could work to discourage some people from coming down to Pennsylvania, because it would raise the price levels fairly significantly on disposing of trash in Pennsylvania. So it might have some solitary effect on discouraging out-of-state haulers. But on the other hand, if we can't do anything about it constitutionally in terms of an outright ban, we might as well get something out of it so we can do environmental conservation and other areas.

BL: How does your background and experience prepare you to deal with some of these issues better than your opponents, not just Bob Casey, but Mike Fisher?

ER: Because as Mayor we dealt with environmental questions all of the time. We had an air quality, air management division of the health department. We had to worry about air quality; we had to worry about water quality. We have a primary and secondary treatment plant for our waterways, at one point there was consideration of a tertiary treatment plant. So we dealt with those issues, we dealt with a recycling program. All of the issues that would confront the state, the city of Philadelphia, we've dealt with all of them, and I have experience dealing with them, and I think we've made significant environmental progress.

BL: We talked a little bit about open space, but a bigger issue right now seems to be the use of state forests. I know that you and many others had come out against the DCNR's recent proposal to open up without public comment a large portion for drilling. But they're currently multi-used forests. They're used for timber, they're used for drilling, they're used for recreation and preservation. What's the balance to strike there?

ER: It's hard to say a definitive balance going forward. It's hard to exactly pinpoint it. I think our forests should be preserved as much as humanly possible for recreation and just for enjoyment of the natural beauty of Pennsylvania. One of the things that people don't realize is that that natural beauty, those recreational forests, they have an economic development impact for the state as well.

ER: Tourism is our second biggest industry in terms of the people it employs. And the beautiful open spaces, the forests of Pennsylvania, the recreational uses that come from having these green open spaces and forests, they contribute dramatically to the level of our tourism, dramatically. Secondly, quality of life is always very high on the list of criteria for why companies or people or families locate or relocated in an area. And preserving our open spaces or having them there for recreational purposes is one of the things that contributes to the high level of quality of life that we offer in Pennsylvania, and that also translates into economic benefits.

BL: So in your view it's a case of figuring out how to balance the different needs.

ER: No question, but I would give priority-all else being equal-I would give the nod to preserving the beautiful forests of Pennsylvania for just public use and recreation.

BL: What else would you say are some of the major issues? A lot of people have been talking about, in this drought time, water conservation programs, what else?

ER: I think now water quantity is becoming an issue. Pennsylvania is right now undergoing an assessment of water quality, but I think we also need to take a look at and assess of our water quantity. There's very little control other than in Philadelphia and one other area of the state. Here we do have the Delaware River Basin Commission, which does look at controlling the quantity of our water and what happens to that. But other than that, there's no real oversight on water quantity in Pennsylvania. I was in Fayette County in Southwestern Pennsylvania, and just having enough water to meet the needs of Fayette County was a huge problem. There are many Pennsylvania communities that still get most of there water from wells.

BL: The environment is something many Pennsylvanians take very seriously, but it doesn't seem to have become a very large issue in the debate so far. Why do you think that is?

ER: I think it's basically because it's one of the areas, and as I said in the debate in Philadelphia on Saturday night, one of the areas where Bob Casey and I agree. I mean, he and I agree on a lot of things. In many ways, a lot of our views are the same; I guess you would call them traditional Democratic views. I think on the environment we are basically the same.

BL: In that case, how would you say Mike Fisher, or even Michael Morrill, the Green Party candidate differs from either of you?

ER: Actually I haven't had an opportunity to examine their views yet. They're both general election opponents, and I'm not going to spend any time worrying about the general election until the morning of May 22nd, at which time I'll either find an environmentally sound way to dispose of all my position papers if I lose, or if I win, I'll take a couple days off and start reading more about their positions on these issues.

BL: Sounds reasonable. I got a press release the other day from Mike Morrill's campaign saying you signed a petition to help get him on the ballot.

ER: Yes, I actually think he's a bright man and I think the Green Party voice is one that ought to be heard. I never believed that democracy should be restrictive. I actually have been very impressed with Mike, we've had three or four joint appearances. And I think he's a good guy, and a pretty good voice.

ER: I think the environment will be more of an issue in the fall campaign, because I think there will be differences between Mike Fisher and either Bob Casey or myself.