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.

There was a bit of discussion about the City of Industry / Ed Roski plan to build a new sports stadium in LA County. The stories neglect to tell you a very major point, that Ted Lieu is listed as a principle co-author of ABX381, a bill that many detests.

Now, Lieu is running for Attorney General and does not dare brag about this bill on his web site.  In fact, the news lets Senate ProTem Steinberg take the rap for setting aside California’s Environmental Quality legislation to aid a private developer and a city of less than 1000 people.

I don’t think that this state needs an Attorney General who is so willing to set aside environmental law when it becomes convenient, just for that sake of a big developer who promises jobs… something that sports complexes routinely fail to deliver.

It might have been expected from a Republican.  That Lieu is a Democrat should be embarrassing to the party. I have already seen an effort to have SoCal Greens oppose Lieu over his willingness to set aside existing law.

(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.

(An interesting back-room story. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

This article written by:  Former Assembly Member, Hannah Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

This is the truly crazy-making time of the legislative year, when hundreds of bills line up on the floor like airplanes on a crowded runway. And productivity isn't measured by the quality of the bills being considered but rather by the number that are disposed of on the floor each day. With over 700 bills waiting for take-off or otherwise, it's a madhouse. Several bills have already been or will be delayed, postponed or canceled while most of those lined up will take off for the Governor's desk where their fate will be decided within thirty days of their final vote. An action alert is up, here. But read on for the details.

It is chaos, exhausting and usually a productive time. But this is also the time of year when egos and hard-feelings from past slights, disrespect or other machinations force otherwise important measures to languish and die, often even before hitting the runway.

Such is the fate of Senator Joe Simitian's bill, SB 412 which would required the Liquified Natural Gas supporters to demonstrate an actual need for the product before any LNG terminals could be built in California. This seems like a no-brainer in that these plants are enormously expensive to build and often present serious environmental concerns. It would only make sense that before California allow any to be constructed under those conditions that we prove they are actually necessary. With that in mind, the measure should have made it to the floor—but was held up in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, along with several other important measures that had been developed and passed not only through their “house of origin” (the Senate) but had made it beyond all the Assembly committees to find a hoped-for temporary resting place in the Assembly before being released for floor vote in that house. In SImitian's case, he had no such luck. Was it the nature of the bill and lots of opposition? Nope. Not in this case.

It was more a victim of the all-too-common tension between the “upper” and “lower” houses of the legislature. Considered by many to be the genius of our Founding Fathers and their creation of the bicameral system of government where bills must pass through two, separate legislative groups-the Senate and the Assembly (similar to Congress where the Senate and the House of Representatives often do battle), it often translates down into petty or ego-driven disputes. In this case, the holding of Simitian's bill is more a battle of power and ego where the upper and lower chambers are feeling slighted by each other. When that happens, good ideas and hard-fought bills are often the victims of political infighting. Such is the case with SB 412–and many other measures now neglected on the Appropriations Committee floors of each house.

The good news is that there is still time to resurrect SB 412 and that's just what we here at Speak Out California are hoping will happen. On Tuesday, September 4th, we sent out an action alert to our subscribers asking them to contact the Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Nunez, and urge him to release this bill from the Appropriations Committee so that it can be heard. While often bills can wait until next year, there is a time constraint on this measure that requires its implementation this year. Why?

In essence this bill does two things: It requires the state to do a LNG Needs Assessment as part of its Integrated Energy Policy Report before approving placement of an LNG terminal in California. If we don't need it, why force it on our communities?

It also clarifies that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires strong alternatives technology analysis so that if an LNG terminal is approved for California, it will be the safest design with the fewest impacts.

With enormous cost and profit possiblities, there are several companies moving forward full-throttle to become California's LNG supplier. The longer we delay in requiring these standards, the less likely we will be able to justify imposing them after millions and millions of dollars have been spent developing plans, permits, etc. that the process requires. Unless we pass this legislation into law this year, it will be too late to impose these important criteria on the companies developing their proposals as we speak.

For more information on this important measure, and to send a request to the Speaker, check out our recent action alert:
http://ga4.org/campaign/ActNowforCaliforniasEnergy Future

Of course, there are many measures that suffered a similar fate and many more that are on the floor of both houses during this last, frenetic week of activity. With 700 bills to consider, there will be days with votes on 100 bills or more. Some move within seconds and the most difficult take up to hours, especially in the Assembly where often all 80 members feel compelled to speak. It is definitely the most interesting time of the legislative year and often the most chaotic. Remember it was at this point in 1996 when the ill-fated electricity de-regulation bill took off, only to crash and burn on the watch of a totally new and unsuspecting legislature years down the road. We  can only hope that this year the legislature will escape that fate. That answer, though, may not be known for some time.

For now, we can only keep our fingers crossed and take heed of the Hypocratic oath  to “do no harm”. As in each and every legislative session, we shall watch and see.