How is it that a controversial amendment – understood apparently only by the International Paper lobbyist who wrote it and the company’s closest supporters on the Natural Resources Committee – can pass unanimously with little significant debate?

Last week, the amendment to legislation setting water quality standards for the Androscoggin River went straight from a lobbyist to Sen. John Martin and then was rubber-stamped by the committee.

Lewiston state Sen. Peggy Rotundo and Rep. Elaine Makas, who have fought to make sure water quality for the Androscoggin meets the same standards as other rivers in the state, sought clarification of what the vague amendment would actually do.

The amendment, which passed unanimously, said, in part: “Any finding or notice of such a violation by the department shall be null and void on the effective date of this chapter.” While the meaning is not clear, the language seems to create an amnesty for polluters who exceed the limits of their discharge licenses and prevents the state from issuing a notice of violation.

After questions were raised last week, committee Chairman Sen. Scott Cowger said the amendment would be replaced by a new one written by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection during a session scheduled for today.

The committee charged with protecting the state’s environment should not have accepted an unclear amendment without even a few moments of debate. Essentially, lawmakers allowed a lobbyist to write the law, which they then passed without serious debate. It’s good that the amendment will be reconsidered, but it should have garnered more attention in the first place.