Runoff rules

North Carolina shellfish and shellfishermen are fighting for survival, each after their fashion, but some legislators apparently see no problem with pouring polluted water on struggling oysters and clams.

What else to conclude from House Bill 2138, which, if passed, would flat-out "disapprove" of new state rules intended to give shellfish -- and the hard-hit shellfishing industry -- a fighting chance at a comeback?

Oh, opponents of new coastal stormwater runoff rules say they're not really in favor of further polluting shellfishing waters, of which tens of thousands of acres are already permanently closed. Not at all. The opponents, who include officials from several coastal counties, say they're just pro-economic development. And all they say they want is further study of rules that were, according to their lobbyist, "snuck through by staffers who did not look at the detriment to eastern North Carolina."

But that's hardly the case. The process was lengthy and involved well-attended public hearings. It culminated this January in approval of the rules by the state Environmental Management Commission. The N.C. Rules Review Commission gave its OK in March. The rules are scheduled to take effect in August.

Further study? The N.C. Coastal Federation rightly fears that means at least a year's delay, maybe outright rejection.

And though the rules would add requirements for new houses within a half-mile of shellfishing waters, they certainly wouldn't ban development. The main change is that plans to create "impervious surfaces" on more than 12 percent of a lot would require a permit. Builders would have to control stormwater runoff, which transports chemical and bacterial pollutants to sensitive shellfishing waters. Permit requirements could be met by devices as simple as cisterns or "rain gardens" that slow and disperse runoff.

Make no mistake: these new regulations are important for a sustainable coast and a mixed coastal economy. Existing standards are not doing the job. The great majority of state legislators should refuse to carry (polluted) water for those who can't see their own longer-term interest.