All posts by JenesseMiller

How did your representatives vote on the environment?

California’s clean air and water, pristine coastline, wild open spaces and public health protections don’t happen by accident. They happen because champions for the environment run for office, and once they’re elected, they work to pass laws that protect our natural resources and improve our quality of life.

Today the California League of Conservation Voters released our annual California Environmental Scorecard. The Scorecard is the behind-the-scenes look at the battle to protect the Golden State’s natural legacy and public health, and reveals how the governor and members of the state legislature voted on critical environmental proposals in the 2010 legislative session. Take action and let your legislators know what you think about their 2010 scores: Visit http://www.ecovote.org/

The story of the 2010 Scorecard is as much about how the environmental community stopped multiple attacks on the environment as it is about how we passed strong laws that protect our quality of life. But the story doesn’t end there, because we expect more attacks in 2011 that falsely claim we need to sacrifice the environment in order to improve the economy.

Emboldened by the tough economic climate, anti-environmental legislators introduced dozens of so-called “regulatory reform” bills in 2010 in an attempt to weaken environmental protections. The good news is that, with the help of environmental champions in the state Senate and Assembly, CLCV and our allies successfully defeated the bills that posed the most serious threats to the environment and public health. At the same time, environmental advocates were able to deliver several important proposed laws to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk, including bills dealing with energy storage, recycling, water conservation, pesticides, clean energy jobs, and oil spill prevention.

Schwarzenegger’s 2010 score of 56% factored into an average lifetime score of 53 percent over his seven years as governor. The governor received national recognition for leadership on environmental issues. However, he leaves office with a mixed legacy, having championed some issues-notably, bold solutions to climate change-and having proven less reliable on others, including protecting public health and state parks.

How did your legislator perform on the environmental community’s priority legislation to protect the environment and public health? Learn your legislators’ scores and then let them know what you think! (More after the jump).

2010 California Environmental Scorecard Highlights:

Governor Schwarzenegger 56% (leaves office with 53% average score)

Senate average: 59%

Senate Democrats: 91%

Senate Republicans: 6%

Senators with 100% score: 12

Highest Scoring Senate Republican: Blakeslee, 21%

Lowest Scoring Senate Democrat: Correa, 30%

Assembly average: 64%

Assembly Democrats: 94%

Assembly Republicans: 7%

Assemblymembers with 100% score: 30

Highest Scoring Assembly Republican: Fletcher, 19%

Lowest Scoring Assembly Democrat: Huber, 43%

Perfect 100%:

Senators: Alquist, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, A. Lowenthal, Pavley, Steinberg, Yee.

Assemblymembers: Ammiano, Bass, Beall, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, de Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Gatto, Hayashi, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, B. Lowenthal, Monning, Nava, J. Pérez, Ruskin, Salas, Saldaña, Skinner, Swanson, Torlakson, Yamada.

The California Environmental Scorecard is an important tool for environmental voters, who for nearly 40 years have helped CLCV deliver on our mission to hold elected officials accountable to their campaign promises to protect California’s families and natural heritage.

With the introduction this year of a new interactive, online Environmental Scorecard, CLCV is making it even easier for voters to communicate with their elected officials about their environmental performance.

Please know the score and take action today! Visit http://www.ecovote.org/

Governor’s Budget Proposal: Environmental Programs Share in the Sacrifice

Programs that fund state parks, maintain wild open spaces, protect wild lands from forest fires, fund public transportation and more are all on the table in Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed budget.  

Make no mistake, there is a lot for environmental advocates (and everyone else) to hate about this proposed budget. But with a two-thirds majority in the state legislature required to pass new taxes and now (thanks to Prop 26) new fees, and with legislative Republicans refusing thus far to consider any new sources of revenue, Governor Brown must work with the hand he was dealt.

During his campaign for governor, Brown promised voters that he would put a halt to the gimmicks that served as short-term Band-Aids on budget shortfalls in the past. He promised a tough but fair budget that – in closing an estimated $25 billion budget shortfall – would spare few of the state’s programs and services. And he has mostly made good on that promise, with the most profound cuts in the areas where the state spends the most – health & social services and higher education. The total proposed spending cuts: a staggering $12.5 billion.

For now, Governor Brown’s budget spares the state’s K-12 public education system, preferring to allow voters to decide in a special election to agree to a five-year extension of $12 billion in taxes that will otherwise expire this year (including vehicle licensing fees, state sales taxes and state income taxes) or allow even deeper cuts to California’s programs and services, including to the K-12 system.

Here’s a summary of how environmental programs fared in the governor’s first budget proposal:

Natural Resources

As expected, the agency will share in the sacrifice being asked of all levels of state government. On the one hand, we’re relieved that the cuts proposed to the agency were fairly minimal (at least as a percentage of the overall budget cuts). On the other, the worst of the cuts are to the already-struggling state parks budget (which totaled $406 million last year). The $11 million proposed cuts this year and $22 million more in ongoing cuts will result in some parks closing and/or more restricted park hours for the public. As the California State Parks Foundation points out, budget reductions over the past few years have already left the parks system operating with 150 partial closures and service reductions.

We’re waiting for a more specific list of proposed closures and service reductions before making a complete assessment-according to a state finance department spokesman, Brown asked State Parks Director Ruth Coleman to submit by February a list of the parks that will have reduced hours or will be closed completely. Cuts this deep will magnify the budget reductions already sustained by the state parks in recent years and they are sobering, to say the least.

California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird said it was necessary for his agency to share in the short-term sacrifice:

“This Governor is determined to upright California’s budget… Fixing the long-term problem requires sacrifice from each Californian–and certainly the Natural Resources Agency–in the short-term. If California is to achieve a long-term vision for natural resources management that plays a role in restoring the state’s economy, the governor’s plan is the right path.”

Delta Restoration

The Bay Delta Ecosystem Restoration Account was zeroed out in the budget. Questions remain about how to implement BDCP in light of this.

Open Space

The proposal also zeroes out all $10 million in state funding for The California Land Conservation Act-commonly referred to as the Williamson Act. For decades, the Act has helped keep large parcels of land in California as open space by enabling local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. The incentive: lower-than-normal property tax assessments (based on farming and open space uses versus full market value).

The revenue for some rural counties under the Act has been significant. Eliminating funding may force some landowners to allow their lands to be developed for housing or retail, contributing to sprawl and allowing more of California’s precious open space to disappear.

Transportation

Surprisingly, transportation fared pretty well in this budget, with funding levels left unchanged from last year. According to the San Jose Mercury News:

Transportation officials say Brown’s plan would provide a stable source of funding for transit and highway planning across the state, and that could speed up work on some projects.”

Wildfires

Brown’s budget proposes changing the way the state battles wildfires, reducing the number of firefighters to pre-2003 staffing levels and shifting a significant amount of fire-fighting responsibility to cities and counties. (This is just one of many areas where Brown proposes a wholesale restructuring of the relationship between state and local governments.) Some experts on wildfires have already reacted warily to the proposal (read more in the Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/bre…



Environmental Protection

The $71 million reduction ($12 million from the general fund) is one of the biggest cuts to the environment in the proposed budget. As with much of the above, we await details on these cuts.

Click here for the full budget summary: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

It’s Official: John Laird appointed California Secretary for Natural Resources

(We noted this pick last week; it is great to see it all official-like. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

As one of his first actions, Governor-elect Jerry Brown has appointed the Honorable John Laird as California Secretary for Natural Resources. This is a superb decision. A longtime environmental champion, John Laird served with distinction for six years as an Assemblyman representing the central coast counties of Santa Cruz and Monterey. During this period, John received a 100% score from both the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) and Sierra Club California for his votes on environmental issues.

CLCV enthusiastically endorsed John when he ran for state office. We’re equally thrilled that he will continue to protect California’s natural, historical and cultural resources in this new role.

Laird has an impressive record of environmental leadership during his twenty-three years in elected office. While serving in the California Assembly, John distinguished himself as a leader both in the environmental community and with his colleagues on budget and environmental issues. Laird demonstrated both political sophistication and compassion in his efforts to protect and invest in California’s precious natural resources.

As noted in CLCV’s 2008 Environmental Scorecard, Laird was “the highest-ranking voice for the environment in the inner circle of leadership, the trusted and respected chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, and a dedicated friend and mentor to environmental advocates.” The 2008 Scorecard is available online: http://www.ecovote.org/scoreca…

As Budget Chair, Laird worked hard to reverse the persistent trend of the state’s under-funding of natural resources and environmental protection. One of his most significant achievements included allocating $250 million to the state budget to begin funding the $1 billion backlog in state parks deferred maintenance, providing for $19 million to protect and manage California’s ocean resources and augmenting the Department of Fish and Game’s funding by over $70 million.

California’s enormous budget deficit will create severe challenges for the managers of our natural resources. The Secretary will be required to make tough choices that balance the need to protect the environment with fewer dollars. We look forward to working with John Laird to face these challenges.

California League of Conservation Voters Endorses Jerry Brown for Governor

The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV, the non-partisan political arm of the environmental movement in California, today announced its endorsement of Jerry Brown for Governor of California. To watch CLCV’s endorsement video, visit http://www.ecovote.org/blog/clcv-endorses-jerry-brown-governor

“CLCV is proud to endorse Jerry Brown to become California’s next Governor,” said CLCV Chief Executive Officer Warner Chabot. “As Attorney General and as a former Governor of our great state, Jerry Brown has a stellar record of protecting the environment and public health through his leadership on and tough enforcement of our state’s environmental laws.”

“The November gubernatorial election offers clear choices for California voters,” said CLCV Board of Directors President Tom Adams. “Jerry Brown is the only candidate for governor with both an unwavering commitment to the environment, and a clear plan for California to lead the nation to a clean energy economy.”

“I am grateful to have the endorsement of the California League of Conservation Voters,” said Jerry Brown.  “Our coastline, farmland, mountains, deserts and urban environments all make up the great and unique landscape of California. I have always believed that environmental protection and California’s long-term economic prosperity go hand-in-hand and I will continue to promote both as Governor of California.”

A key difference between Brown and his Republican opponent Meg Whitman is their position on Proposition 23, the oil industry-backed repeal of California’s landmark clean energy and climate law (AB 32) on the November ballot. Brown joins business and military leaders in opposing Prop 23. He recognizes that California’s policies resulted in venture capitalists investing billions of dollars in California’s clean tech sector, and vigorously defends the climate law from attacks by out-of-state oil companies.  

In contrast, Whitman, relying on the same widely discredited studies as the oil industry, calls AB 32 a “job-killer.” While she hasn’t taken a position on Prop 23, Whitman says she would call for a year-long moratorium on the clean energy law, which would damage the one bright spot in California’s economy while bringing a halt to environmental progress.

“Jerry Brown shares the environmental and clean tech community’s vision of California becoming the national, if not the global, leader in developing clean energy, which complements his goals of improving California’s air quality, creating jobs, and fighting climate change,” said Chabot.

As Governor from 1975-1982, Brown established California as a leader in renewable energy and energy efficiency and conservation, adopted the toughest anti-smog laws in the country, expanded state parks, started the California Conservation Corps, banned the sale of dangerous chemicals, successfully fought offshore oil drilling plans, and signed into law the California Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy Acts, among numerous other accomplishments. Brown earned a lifetime score of 86% on CLCV’s California Environmental Scorecard for his votes on environmental legislation as Governor.

More recently as Attorney General, Brown defended California’s auto emission standards against the Bush Administration, leading to the historic agreement between the Obama Administration and the auto industry that requires cars nationwide to adopt California’s standards.  Brown joined other Attorneys General in suing the Bush Administration for failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, resulting in a Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are air pollutants subject to the Act.

Brown also worked with cities and counties to develop long-term growth plans to reduce pollution and traffic and halted the Bush Administration’s efforts to gut the federal Endangered Species Act, just to name a few key environmental actions as Attorney General.

Brown has proven he will be a champion for the environment, which is why CLCV urges voters to elect him governor on November 2nd.

CLCV Announces CA Scores from LCV’s 2009 National Environmental Scorecard

*** Full Scorecard available at www.lcv.org/scorecard ***

Today, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) joined the national League of Conservation Voters (LCV) in releasing the 2009 National Environmental Scorecard, revealing scores for the California delegation in the first session of the 111th Congress. For 30 years, the National Environmental Scorecard issued by LCV has been the nationally accepted yardstick used to rate members of Congress on environmental, public health and energy issues.

“We applaud those members of the California delegation who fought in 2009 to bring clean energy jobs to the state and reduce our national dependence on foreign oil, particularly Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and the 23 members of the House of Representatives who received a perfect score for their environmental votes,” said CLCV CEO Warner Chabot. “The 2009 Scorecard clearly exposes numerous other legislators for their terrible voting record and willingness to put corporate polluters and other special interests ahead of a cleaner, more secure energy future for California.”

The 2009 Scorecard includes 11 Senate and 13 House votes dominated by clean energy and climate change but also encompassing other environmental issues such as public lands, water and wildlife conservation.  In California, 23 House members and both Senators earned a perfect 100 percent score in 2009, while nine House members received an abysmal 0 percent. The average score in 2009 for California members of the House was 63 percent.

“The 2009 National Environmental Scorecard illustrates the extent to which the Obama administration and the 111th Congress began to move our nation towards a clean energy future that will create new jobs, make America more energy independent and curb global warming pollution,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski.   “However, it also makes clear that there is still much work to be done, first and foremost to finish the work started in the House by swiftly passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in the Senate.”

Given the scope, magnitude and urgency of addressing the climate crisis and building a clean energy economy, LCV took the extraordinary step of double-scoring the House votes on final passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. A majority of the California delegation voted for the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act.

2009 SCORES:

Senate

Feinstein (D) 100

Boxer (D) 100

House

1 Thompson, M. (D ) 100

2 Herger (R ) 0

3 Lungren (R ) 0

4 McClintock (R ) 0

5 Matsui (D ) 100

6 Woolsey (D ) 100

7 Miller, George (D ) 86

8 Pelosi (D ) N/A

9 Lee (D ) 100

10 Garamendi (D ) 100

10 Tauscher (D ) 91

11 McNerney (D ) 93

12 Speier (D ) 93

13 Stark (D ) 71

14 Eshoo (D ) 100

15 Honda (D ) 100

16 Lofgren (D ) 100

17 Farr (D ) 100

18 Cardoza (D ) 86

19 Radanovich (R ) 0

20 Costa (D ) 71

21 Nunes (R ) 7

22 McCarthy, K. (R ) 0

23 Capps (D ) 100

24 Gallegly (R ) 7

25 McKeon (R ) 14

26 Dreier (R ) 0

27 Sherman (D ) 100

28 Berman (D ) 100

29 Schiff (D ) 100

30 Waxman (D ) 100

31 Becerra (D ) 100

32 Chu (D ) 100

32 Solis (D ) 100

33 Watson (D ) 100

34 Roybal-Allard (D ) 93

35 Waters (D ) 93

36 Harman (D ) 93

37 Richardson (D ) 100

38 Napolitano (D ) 100

39 Sanchez, Linda (D ) 79

40 Royce (R )  7

41 Lewis, Jerry (R ) 7

42 Miller, Gary (R ) 0

43 Baca (D ) 100

44 Calvert (R ) 14

45 Bono Mack (R ) 43

46 Rohrabacher (R ) 7

47 Sanchez, Loretta (D ) 100

48 Campbell (R ) 0

49 Issa (R ) 7

50 Bilbray (R ) 21

51 Filner (D ) 100

52 Hunter (R ) 0

53 Davis, S. (D ) 93

The full 2009 National Environmental Scorecard can be found at www.lcv.org/scorecard

# # #

“Smokestack Steve” and “Monoxide Meg?” AB 32 Attacks Continue

Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor’s race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).

Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman’s announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called “jobs” initiative” (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.

Poizner’s and Whitman’s attacks on California’s landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: “Smokestack Steve” and “Monoxide Meg.”

It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state’s natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to “Build a Greener Governor” (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.

This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.  

As readers of Calitics probably know, a version of the initiative, AB 118 (Logue) was just rejected on Monday by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

As Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), described in a piece that appeared this week in the California Progress Report:

“[T]he Assembly Natural Resources Committee rejected AB 118, legislation that would have overturned California’s landmark global warming law that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Not only would AB 118 have jeopardized public health and the environment, it would have imposed economic harm at a time when California is already struggling to regain our financial footing…”

“This bill, gutted and amended just this week, was part of a statewide campaign to stymie California’s economic recovery and deny workers the opportunity to benefit from the emerging new energy economy. [Assemblyman Dan] Logue, along with Rep. Tom McClintock and the association founded by Paul Gann, have filed an initiative nearly identical to AB 118 with the California Attorney General’s office with the intention of circulating it for signatures to qualify for the November 2010 general election…”

“Suspension of AB 32, the State’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, would cause economic distress and create an uncertain business environment for thousands of California employers who have played by the rules by investing in clean technology, setting up training programs, retooling equipment and taking other actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stimulate the economy.”

Foes of AB 32 will continue to strategize a way to kill it – whether it’s by a governor’s executive order, legislation or a ballot initiative. CLCV and environmental partners are fending off these attacks by joining with our allies in labor, public health, consumer protection, and sustainable/progressive business communities to move our state in the right direction, by building a greener governor, a greener legislature, and a greener California. One easy step each of us can take is visit http://www.greengov2010.org/, sign up as an environmental champion and start adding our voices to the debate.

Parks versus drilling?

That’s the question asked by reporter John Myers (of the California Report) regarding Governor Schwarzenegger’s decision to link funding of the state’s parks to new offshore oil drilling in his just-released budget proposal.

Myers tweeted:

“Guv links $200 mil from the controversial T-Ridge oil drilling project 2 help pay for #caparks. Quite a political move: parks vs. drilling?”

Here’s the excerpt from the state budget summary released today:

“Fund State Parks from Tranquillon Ridge Oil Revenues – A reduction of $140 million in General Fund and replacement with revenue generated from the Tranquillon Ridge oil lease. It is estimated that the Tranquillon Ridge oil lease will generate $1.8 billion in advanced royalties over the next 14 years. This revenue will be used to fund state parks. The Governor’s Budget assumes that the State Lands Commission will approve the Tranquillon Ridge proposal. If not approved by the Commission, legislation will be necessary.”

As regular Calitics readers know, the vast majority of environmental groups, including my organization, the California League of Conservation Voters, oppose the Tranquillon Ridge oil drilling proposal. Of course, no one wants to see our state’s incredible, envy-of-the-world state parks closed to the public. Is the governor trying to pit environmentalists against each other? Those who oppose lifting the 40-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling versus champions of our state parks?



(There’s more over the flip…)

Another major problem with the governor’s budget – it decimates public transit funding.

According to the L.A. Times:

“One of the proposed budget’s biggest losers is public transit – and its riders. Through a complex gas tax swap, which would simultaneously eliminate the sales tax on gas and raise the per-gallon excise tax, roughly $1 billion would be siphoned off from bus and rail funds. The shift would gut Proposition 42, a voter-approved measure that determines how gas tax money is currently split. Mass transit, which now receives 20% of the taxes, would be cut out of the equation. Drivers would pay slightly less at the pump.”

Myers and Capitol Weekly’s Anthony York discussed these two anti-environmental proposals, as well as other components of the governor’s budget, in a recent and lively Podcast conversation:

Anthony York: “Another central contradiction to this governor, is that here is the ‘environmental governor’ stripping a billion dollars out of public transit funding… and I think there are public transit advocates that say, look, this doesn’t make any sense… here’s a guy who prides himself on, there was a bill passed, by Senator Darrell Steinberg, SB 375, that would call for more smart growth, and developing public transit projects in with new housing and business development, and here the governor’s decimating funding for public transit, how can you… call yourself the green governor, when really what you’re doing is building more roads which is creating an infrastructure for more cars, and also eliminating funding for public transit, and also oil drilling. I mean, that’s something we should talk about…”

John Myers: “On the issue of the environment, the governor is resurrecting in this budget the long-debated controversial plan for new offshore oil drilling in state waters off of Northern Santa Barbara county, a project known as Tranquillon Ridge, ‘T-Ridge’ in the lingo. And the governor is actually calling this $200 million to help the state budget because they’re saying, we get $100 million in the budget year that ends in July and another $100 million in the next year (York: if we start drilling yesterday)… Only $100 million is the up-front royalty, the rest of it is dependent on the price of oil and how fast we drill it out of the ocean floor. ..

In a very interesting political chess move, the governor has linked the T-Ridge oil drilling money to funding for state parks in this budget, and effectively saying a new offshore oil drilling proposal will help pay for the parks. Some people would say that’s brilliant politics, some would say it cynical politics, I’m not going to judge but it’s fascinating.”

I’m going to have to go with “cynical politics.” Remember, T-Ridge got really close to becoming a reality; it was passed by the Senate but not the Assembly.

And of course, the governor also proposed (under the false premise of job creation) exempting a large number of big constructions projects from the California Environmental Quality Act in his “State of the State” address. (Visit the CLCV blog for more on that: http://www.ecovote.org/blog/?p…

There’s much, much more to hate in the governor’s budget proposal (which has been well-covered here at Calitics) – after all, the state is facing yet another multi-billion dollar shortfall, so painful cuts to education, social services, and more were expected. But it’s clear that the governor has failed to look at the full range of solutions to our budget woes.

Of billionaires, football stadiums and environmental waivers

(Jenesse has done a lot of outreach on this issue for the CA League of Conservation Voters. You can find this story on their blog here. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Dan Walters recently called out several of the “mushroom bills” making their way through the state legislature in the Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert, including one to exempt a billionaire developer’s football stadium from the environmental impact process:

“A marker of a legislative session’s final days is the emergence of legislative language that lobbyists circulate, hoping to get them enacted before opposition can develop.

Known as ‘mushroom bills’ because of they sprout in darkness, these are measures that probably could not pass through the ordinary process because of their controversial nature… As the final week begins, a number of mushroom bills are floating around the Capitol, including one that the City of Industry wants to exempt its planned football stadium from the usual environmental impact process. It’s aimed at short-circuiting opposition to developer Ed Roski Jr.’s stadium plan from nearby cities, which say they will bear the impacts of traffic and other side effects if professional football is played in Industry.

Industry has hired a squad of well-connected lobbyists to pass the stadium measure and also promote its scheme to allow cities to extend soon-to-expire redevelopment projects in return for allowing the state to shift some redevelopment funds to the deficit-ridden state budget.”

(I’d like to point out, they’re not only called mushroom bills because they grow in darkness, but because they grow in… well, something that stinks.) The LA Times’ Garrett Therolf wrote about the L.A. County supervisors opposition to the environmental waivers on the proposed NFL stadium: http://www.latimes.com/news/lo…

The state legislature has gotten an earful from the environmental community about this particular smelly mushroom bill. In a letter sent to leadership last week, several environmental groups, including Sierra Club California, Natural Resources Defense Council, California League of Conservation Voters, and several others signaled their strong opposition to “eleventh-hour schemes to circumvent environmental laws” as the legislative session comes to an end.  

In a week where the state legislature is debating a historic water package, they also, completely out of public view, are pushing through a CEQA exemption on a project that, according to one lawsuit, hasn’t identified the source of its water supply.  

The letter is excerpted below the flip. Let’s hope the legislature, which is suffering extraordinary low approval numbers, does the right thing and rejects this mushroom bill.

“With one week to go in the legislative session, the Capitol is knee-deep in eleventh-hour schemes to circumvent environmental laws.  In only the last few days, proposals have surfaced to grant a CEQA exemption by statute to a billionaire real estate developer who wants to build a professional football stadium in the City of Industry.”

“Regarding the proposal for a CEQA exemption, we understand that one reason for the proposal is that it will create jobs.  Environmental organizations agree that the state’s high unemployment rate is devastating families and is unacceptable and support the creation of good jobs in California.  These groups are vigorously supporting legislation to establish a renewable electricity requirement (AB 64 and SB 14) that will create thousands of high-paying green jobs in new, clean technologies.  And environmental groups and the State Building and Construction Trades Council are co-sponsoring legislation (AB 1404) to ensure that AB 32 offsets will stay in California and create green jobs for the state’s economy.”

“Nor do these groups oppose large construction projects like a football stadium.  What we oppose are eleventh-hour amendments to exempt a massive construction project in the midst of a heavily urbanized area from the state’s most basic environmental protection and public right-to-know law.  By definition, with one week to go in the session, there simply will not be time for adequate public hearings, and the staging of perfunctory and rushed hearings will not change that fact.”  

“Perhaps most fundamentally, we oppose the suggestion that the construction of a football stadium must be a choice between jobs and the environment.  Obviously, the building of Mr. Roski’s football stadium will create jobs whether or not it is subjected to CEQA review.  The only question is whether the jobs will come at the expense of the public’s right to participate in the review of the project and the environmental impacts that will be overlooked by exempting the project from CEQA.  Mr. Roski certainly did not discover only this week that his proposed football stadium would be subject to CEQA.  In fact, proponents have been seeking a CEQA exemption for months, and the idea first surfaced during the February budget negotiations.  Mr. Roski had ample time to pursue a bill through the open legislative process. This is not an emergency that needs immediate attention; instead a billionaire is demanding immediate action to his manufactured crisis.”

“These proposals are bad public policy.  The timing of these proposals is bad legislative governance.”

Let’s hope the legislature, which is suffering extraordinary low approval numbers, does the right thing and rejects this mushroom bill.