Brad Linder: I'm just going to start off by asking you, in general terms, what are some of the most important environmental concerns facing Pennsylvania and Pennsylvanians today?

Mike Fisher: I think clearly the number one environmental concern is continuing to preserve our green space. And that is a preservation goal that is important not just in suburban Pennsylvania here in the southeast, where people are concerned about suburban sprawl. But preserving our green space is also important to rural Pennsylvania. I consider myself a conservationist. I'm one who has always loved the outdoors. I know how important quality outdoor living is for the people of Pennsylvania, and that's really what I think the next governor needs to focus-continuing to make sure that we preserve that environment.

BL: So when we're talking about green space, we're including not just the areas threatened by sprawl, but farmland preservation, and park preservation, and forests.

MF: All of it. Correct. And our streams, and our lakes, and our woodlands. All of them are important because they're part of the beauty of Pennsylvania. Certainly with our twelve million people, we have enough land that's already developed upon which people can live and make as their home. I think as our population grows we have to concentrate on smart growth, growth that can be done in a way that maintains the beauty of our surroundings.

MF: I had the chance to visit a new area that's being developed within the last month over in Chester County, and the subdivision plan that's being built out by the particular builders involved has preserved significantly more green space than would have been preserved under a subdivision that was built five years ago in Pennsylvania. Instead of trying to develop and put a house on every parcel, it was laid out in such a way that the lot sizes were significantly large, ponds and other open space were preserved, and that's the sort of smart growth I think Pennsylvanians are looking for.

BL: So you're seeing some examples, this place in Chester County, but what sort of leadership is necessary to continue that trend, or to reverse the trends that currently exist?

MF: I think what can be done-and certainly the recent state enactments go towards providing some carrots for municipalities that do joint planning. Today if a municipality wants to expand and wants to provide additional residential growth, working with a neighboring municipality, they can plan it in such a way that every single available acre of space doesn't have to be developed. And it's those kinds of efforts that the state has encouraged that can provide more state help and assistance.

BL: One of the biggest issues that all of the candidates are talking about is Growing Greener. We're talking about open space preservation; we're talking about cleanups. Growing Greener is the state's initiative to do that over the last couple of years, and right now it looks like it might be threatened. I understand that you've got some plans on how to help preserve the program.

MF: Yes, I do, and in fact, Jane Earl and I were the first ones to propose the expansion of the current two dollar-per-ton recycling fee to provide a stable source of funding for Growing Greener. Doubling that fee would provide and additional 52 million dollars, and that money would enable us to keep our existing commitments to the Growing Greener program. The other candidates have jumped on that, and have tried to up me with their proposals, but I really think they're doing it the wrong way. Bob Casey the other talked about adding another 2 dollars on that recycling fee for another purpose totally unrelated to preserving our environment.

MF: The two-dollar recycling fee has been in place since 1988. I think we ought to look at that in a measured way of not ending up to put a fee on trash collection and municipal ordinances that allow trash within a community by diverting the potential revenues from that source to some other purpose. So I'd like to keep that source, whatever the levy is, two dollars, three dollars, five dollars, keep it in an environmental fund so that we can preserve our open space and keep our commitments to the people that are outlined in Growing Greener.

BL: This is one that it seems like a lot of people agree on. That it's important to have a dedicated source of funding, so that shortfalls in the budget don't account for things like what happened this year.

MF: It is. And that six-month delay in freeing up the dollars, I don't think harmed the projects, but showed the peril in not having a dedicated funding source. The delay involved here was literally like a four-month delay and the money's going to be paid after July 1st of 2002, but it does show that without a dedicated funding source, you could end up literally scrapping Growing Greener in subsequent years. So we made this proposal. I made it as my commitment as governor, but I hope the legislature will enact the additional fee as soon as possible at the appropriate level to fund the environmental needs.

BL: I guess the difference between your proposal and these other proposals is the dollar amount, or is there anything beyond that?

MF: It is a dollar amount, but I think it's also a commitment to our outdoors. It's a commitment that says recycling is important. We've already diverted-we're diverting about 4 million tons of waste a year from our landfills as a result of what Pennsylvanians do to recycle. And Pennsylvanians deserve credit for that. It was my law that helped create the Pennsylvania's recycling program. But so too, I think we ought to preserve that for future environmental needs, because Lord only knows we'll have enough of them in future years.

BL: I guess it's an interrelated question here; trash is one of the other major issues that everyone's talking about. Because it's come out recently that Pennsylvania is the number one importer of trash. Trash is interstate commerce and you can't send it away, so what do you do with it?

MF: Well, it's not because we want to be an importer of trash. The recycling fee, one of the advantages of using the recycling fee to promote Growing Greener is that half the waste, almost half the waste that goes into Pennsylvania's landfills is from out of state. But unfortunately the United States Supreme Court says that states can't stop companies from bringing in outside trash from other states. The next governor needs to continue to fight to work with Congress and the president, to try to get some relief. We've done our share by virtue of act 101 that I wrote in 1988 to clean up our landfills and to site new landfills. The rest of the states ought to be able to do their share. New Jersey has space to develop landfills in their state, but they haven't done it, and I think the Congress should put some mandates on states that are net exporters. If they're not going to develop landfill space, then maybe they ought to be paying us, not only for the trash that we develop, but for the loss of our space in future generations.

BL: Now is it possible that trash actually has a bad reputation? Here we're talking about ways that we actually profit off of this importation of trash, and obviously we'd like to see it go somewhere else. But there are some communities that probably rely on it.

MF: They do. And that's why as you talk about, even if moratoriums were possible, I think the idea has to be a local state decision, because there are communities that have sited landfills that welcome the revenue stream that comes to their community. But I think it's one of these issues that we don't want to be a dumping ground, and we shouldn't be a dumping ground. At the same time we should have the right to accept what we want to accept. Where the Supreme Court differs from Pennsylvania's preferred policy is they said that you can't stop a company from importing that trash if they want to accept it. So once we site the landfill, once the operator's in business, the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitutions pretty much says this state can't interfere with that right to do business.

BL: I was speaking to Bob Casey the other day, and he was saying it'll be the job of the next governor to try and push to get that federal legislation changed, but he doesn't quite expect that to happen. Would you try to overturn that?

MF: It's going to be difficult, but I wouldn't give up the fight. If you're there at the table constantly pushing for some change, sooner or later the people that you're going nose to nose with are going to need something. And it's at that point that an aggressive governor's going to be able to say, we'll give you what you need, here's what we need. We need you to do more to develop your own landfill space so that we aren't accepting your trash that depletes our ability to use that landfill space for our own trash for generations to come.

BL: So how does your plan overall differ from your opponents' plans? As we've mentioned it's primarily a dollar amount, the principle is the same, the need to protect open space. Do you see their plans as overshooting the goal, being unrealistic, or what do you see?

MF: I think that both the Casey plan and the Rendell plan on the environment are very sketchy. Our plan on Growing Greener is just a small portion of what our environmental plan will look like as we unveil it once we get past the primary. I think the real difference is I'm the only one that's got a record in preserving our environment. I chaired the environmental resources and energy committee in the state senate for ten years. I have a record of accomplishment of having brought to this state a number of very important pieces of legislation that have helped to clean up our environment, whether it be in the area of recycling, whether it be in municipal waste, whether it be in hazardous waste, whether it be in clean water.

MF: I've been the person who's understood how you need to have not only economic growth, but how you need to balance that with the needs of Pennsylvania's environment. I think I'm the one who's best qualified and has the best credentials to try to balance our future economic growth while at the same time keeping the environment strong?

BL: Now, since I see you have some examples there, you want to share with me some of your accomplishments?

MF: I mentioned a couple already, but we worked in an area that was the oil and gas act that put on the books a law that created a better way to protect landowners from oil and gas drilling. I was also the architect of the creation of an independent environmental hearing board, which provides for an avenue, a recourse for environmental decisions to be made by an independent agency, separate and apart from the Department of Environmental Protection. And I proffesionalized that department, and I think that's gone a long way to straighten up and promote better environmental policy

BL: Speaking of oil and gas drilling, let's talk about the drilling in state forests issue. I'm not sure if I've heard your position on the DCNR's recent decision-well, it's not a decision yet. The DCNR proposed to open a large portion of state forestland for oil and gas drilling, and there was some criticism of their failure to involve the public, and right now they're doing public comment. What's the balance of these multi-use forests that we have? We have a lot of great state forestland, but it's used for timber, for oil and gas, and for recreation and preservation. How do you strike that balance?

MF: I think secretary John Oliver did the right thing and stepped back a bit and said even though there was no requirement to provide this public input, we needed to get this public input. I think I want to wait to hear what that public input is. If a decision was based merely on fiscal issues because the drilling would return revenue to the state at a time when new revenue is needed, that may not be adequate, if in fact there aren't enough environmental protections in place to help preserve our wilderness and preserve our forest land, then we may need to look at whether or not we need to let that number gas leases or oil leases at this time. But I think I want to wait until we get all of the environmental impact in, and until we get the public comments in.

BL: As attorney general, you approach enforcement of environmental regulation with a much firmer hand than many of your opponents. How do you go about making sure regulation is enforced?

MF: I spoke earlier today, I was here in Bucks County, in Richland Township, and one of the people in the audience asked me about used tar disposal. And I reminded them that about 3 years ago, I brought them one of the most significant environmental prosecutions in the state against the person who had stored and dumped old tars and had totally desecrated a beautiful piece of land in their community. And there are efforts we've taken as Attorney General which were very important. I had a suit in which criminal charges were actually filed that resulted in a guilty plea against Conrail for intentional improper disposal of hazardous waste over a period of like 20 years, at a railroad yard at Holidaysburg in Blaire County, and that led to the largest single fine that's ever been paid in Pennsylvania's history for an environmental case a 3 million dollar fine.

MF: We've been aggressive against other industrial polluters who thought that in the still of the night, with nobody watching, they could dispose of their waste and save themselves some money. Well, as it turned out people were watching, and someone who disposes improperly of hazardous waste ends up risking pollution to the groundwater supply, which could end up poisoning Pennsylvanians now or in the future. So we have taken a strong stance and so long as I'm Attorney General, we'll continue to do that.

BL: So long as you're Attorney General you'll continue... As governor how would that role be the same or change?

MF: I think it's important that I've learned from the other side of the table. It's important the DEP work closely with the state's chief law enforcement officer in quickly enough evaluating cases where there may be potential criminal liability, you never want the evidence to go stale. You don't want people who have intentionally violated the law to go free. I wouldn't overreact, but certainly I think I have a special perspective in how aggressive, properly aggressive and balanced implementation of our environmental laws from DEP's standpoint, are necessary for whoever's the chief law enforcement officer.

BL: That's pretty much it for the questions I had. Do you think there's anything else important to touch on when talking about the environment?

MF: No...

BL: Maybe we'll talk again in a few months...

MF: Yeah, again in a few months... because we will be unveiling a much broader environmental plan for Pennsylvania.