The Planning and Conservation League today announced its opposition to controversial "reforms" of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approved by the Legislature.
"The Planning & Conservation League, joining with a coalition including Sierra Club California, Coalition for Clean Air, Clean Water Action, and a host of environmental justice and community groups from the Los Angeles area and throughout California, tried valiantly to stave off three bills that will weaken protections of The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)," the group wrote.
"Unfortunately, SB 226 (Simitian), SB 292 (Padilla) and AB 900 (Buchanan), all either introduced or dramatically amended in the last 36 hours of the legislative session, passed the Legislature on its final day of session. SB 226 will, if signed into law by the Governor, exempt from CEQA certain urban projects deemed 'green', with inadequate definitions of for what defines 'urban' and 'green,'" PCL said.
AB 900, while not an exemption, "streamlines" CEQA's judicial review requirements, potentially limiting the public's voice in challenging projects.
These questionable "reforms" take place at a time when over 11 million fish have been killed in the state and federal Delta water pumping facilities since January 1. Undermining CEQA only makes the epic task of restoring our imperiled Central Valley salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento splittail and other fish populations even harder. For more information on the Delta fish carnage, go to: http://blogs.alternet.org/danb...
These "reforms" have been passed by the Legislature at a time when our fish populations, fishing rights and environment are under assault by corporate interests. The Brown and Obama administrations are fast-tracking the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process to build their beloved peripheral canal to export more water to corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies.
The attempt to exempt so-called "green" projects from CEQA sounds like yet another opportunity for corporate interests to greenwash their legacy by setting up fake "green" projects that are not subject to a thorough environmental review.
This is the problem that grassroots environmentalists, fishermen and Tribes encountered in dealing with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's corrupt Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative. MLPA advocates argued that since the MLPA, overseen by oil industry, real estate, marina development, agribusiness and other corporate operatives, was a "green" project, it was not subject to a complete environmental review under CEQA.
The attempt to further limit the public voice by "streamlining" CEQA's judicial requirements under AB 900 also couldn't come at a worse time, a time when the state and federal governments have launched a virtual war on civil liberties, freedom of speech and assembly, democratic process and the U.S and California Constitutions.
SB 226, SB 292 and AB 900 exemplify how the Legislature has become little more than a tool of corporate interests and corrupt political operatives who seek to overthrow what few vestiges of democracy and public process remain in California!
Below is the complete statement from the PCL Insider:
PCL INSIDER: News from the Capitol
CONTROVERSIAL CEQA REFORMS APPROVED BY LEGISLATURE
PCL stands strong with coalition partners in opposing 11th-hour bills that weaken California's landmark environmental and community protection law
The Planning & Conservation League, joining with a coalition including Sierra Club California, Coalition for Clean Air, Clean Water Action, and a host of environmental justice and community groups from the Los Angeles area and throughout California, tried valiantly to stave off three bills that will weaken protections of The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Unfortunately, SB 226 (Simitian), SB 292 (Padilla) and AB 900 (Buchanan), all either introduced or dramatically amended in the last 36 hours of the legislative session, passed the Legislature on its final day of session. SB 226 will, if signed into law by the Governor, exempt from CEQA certain urban projects deemed 'green', with inadequate definitions of for what defines 'urban' and 'green'.
It could, therefore, allow sprawl or other impactful projects without adequate environmental review. AB 900, while not an exemption, "streamlines" CEQA's judicial review requirements, potentially limiting the public's voice in challenging projects. And SB 292 is, most simply, special treatment under the law for an influential developer (AEG) seeking to build a downtown Los Angeles football stadium. By depriving petitioners of the opportunity for superior court jurisdiction, SB 292 and AB 900 may even violate the California Constitution.
PCL certainly wants to see California take necessary and overdue steps to promote green projects in California, while putting people back to work and transforming the State into a leader in sustainable development; but these 11th-hour efforts, while perhaps well-intentioned, were ill-conceived. They attack important protections of CEQA that have given communities a voice in the development process for more than four decades, with a great deal of uncertainty as to whether these measures were needed to, or will in fact, create more jobs in California.
Moreover, the measures themselves were hastily crafted and poorly thought-out. Some legislators, such as Senator Sam Blakeslee (R, 15th District), did complain about the hastily crafted nature of AB 900 before voting against the bill. That legislation's shortcomings were seemingly acknowledged by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, (D, 6th District), who agreed that 'clean-up' legislation will have to be introduced next year to address the problems with AB 900. In addition to depriving legislators with final bill language before they voted, the rushed process also deprived the public from having meaningful input into the process.
PCL would like to thank the many organizations and individuals who stood strong against this process, and the legislators, like Senator Noreen Evans (D, 2nd District) Assembly member Jared Huffman (D, 6th District) who spoke so eloquently for good governance and for environmental and community protection.
While disappointed at the outcome, PCL will continue to work with its environmental partners, the Legislature, and local communities to ensure that projects developed pursuant these streamlined processes will still protect our environment and public welfare, while we continue to advocate for CEQA to remain a strong environmental bill of rights for all Californians.
For more information, contact the Planning and Conservation League (PCL)
1107 9th Street, Suite 901, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone (916) 822-5631 • Fax (916) 822-5650
pclmail [at] pcl.org • http://www.PCL.org • http://www.PCLFoundation.org
Forty years after passage of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it's become fashionable to bash the landmark law as a 1970's relic that is ripe for reform. Those who would limit the effectiveness of CEQA argue that the law is a "job killer" and an impediment to economic growth. Overhaul CEQA to limit public participation, as a Republican-led business group recently demanded of Governor Brown and the legislature, and California's economy will miraculously recover.
They couldn't be more mistaken.
As President of the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California and Chair of California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), no one is more interested in creating jobs for Californians than I am. But I'm not interested in creating just any jobs. I want the kind of safe, sustainable and skilled jobs that will support workers and their communities over the long-term, and that are critical to the State's future.
Since 1997, when a coalition of building trades and utility unions came together to establish CURE, we have done more to improve the safety and reduce the environmental impacts of new power plants than anyone in California. Through the CEQA process, CURE has helped to cut smog-forming pollutants in half, increased the use of recycled water for cooling systems and pushed for groundbreaking controls on toxic air pollution as the standard for all new power plants.
The Regional Water Quality Board of the Central Valley Region on April 7 decided to not take action on a controversial proposal to establish long-term surface water and groundwater regulations for irrigated farmland.
They did vote to approve an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the plan, required under the California Environmental Water Quality Act (CEQA), during the long, contentious meeting that ran from 9 a.m. to past 8 p.m. at the board's office's in Rancho Cordova.
The board is slated to consider the proposal again during its three-day meeting beginning June 8, according to Pamela Creedon, the board's executive officer.
Fishermen, environmental justice advocates and farmworkers showed in force to oppose the proposal that will continue to address water pollution regulations through voluntary coalitions, a strategy that they say has failed miserably.
"Eight years ago, I testified before this board that the proposed 2003 conditional waiver was seriously flawed and would fail to improve water quality," said Bill Jennings, executive director/chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. "Today, this board cannot quantify a single molecule of pollution that has been prevented, a single Basin Management Plan (BMP) that has been implemented or a single management measure that has been effective."
In the late 1990's, lawyer Mike Lozeau and Jennings prepared the initial petition, filed the initial lawsuit and wrote the legislation that, as chartered, sunset the existing 1982 waivers.
Jennings cited the board's own report acknowledging that virtually all monitored sites downstream of agricultural areas have violated water quality standards. Sixty-three percent experienced toxicity (50 percent) for multiple species, pesticides were exceeded at more than half the sites, often for multiple pesticides, metals violated criteria at 66 percent, pathogens at 87 percent and more 80 percent of the sites violated general parameters.
"The proposed Framework is ineffective," emphasized Jennings. "Under it, the Board can't know, on a site-specific basis, who is discharging, what or how much is being discharged, localized impacts, if BMPs have been implemented or if implemented BMPs are effective."
The proposed regulations classify irrigated farmland into three categories (tiers) based on the threat of contamination. Tier 1 land poses a low threat, Tier 2 has one or more more unknown threats and Tier 3 has one or more consituents that pose a high thread. The farms with the highest threats to groundwater would be required to take steps to reduce fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, pathogens and other agricultural discharge.
Growers representing the irrigator coalitions supported the existing coalitions, claiming they were working, and opposed any stricter regulations.
Perry Klassen of the East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition showed the board charts showing the decline in use of two pesticides, diazinon and chlorpyrifos. "I believe that the coalition appoach is working," he said.
David Orth of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Coalition pointed to a "record of success." "We have good faith participation in the current program and the scoping of long range alternatives," he stated, noting that their coalition had spent over $5,000,000 in its program, including taking over 200 water samples.
However, he pointed out that the proposal's overlapping of tiers, waivers and exemptions "creates multiple classes and layers of confusion."
Although the regional board did not make a decision on the proposal, several board members indicated their support for the voluntary coalitions of irrigators.
"I support the coalitions because they have made great strides to put in effect the best management practices," said Kate Hart-Johns, the board chair. "I also agree that they need to do more."
She said the regulations need to achieve a balance of getting the best water quality while not "putting people of business."
The claims of the growers and board members that water quality was improving under the voluntary program were strongly contested by farmworkers plagued with contaminated drinking water supplies in rural communities throughout the San Joaquin Valley.
"Many parents in some of the poorest communities in the Valley have to tell their kids not to drink the tap water, since the water is contaminated," said Maria Herrera. "The growers talked about the cost to the farm industry of cleaning up the water."
Herrera pointed out the cost of contaminated water to poor communities. "Most of our communities are paying twice for water - first for the water bill and second for bottled water to drink," she stated.
She emphasized that paying twice for water is difficult, considering that the average farmworker salary is only $15,000 per year.
Walter Ramirez from the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF) pointed out that pesticides and nitrates are the main contaminant found in drinking water supplies. "Irrrigated agriculture is not the only source of these contaminants, but it is the main source," he said. "The Board should take action to regulation irrigation discharge."
Michael Lozeau, CSPA lawyer, said the coalition approach to regulating agricultural pollution is bound to failure, since there is no way of knowing which growers are violating the law. "I'm sure some farms are great, while others are awful," he quipped. "But there is no evidence that that the coalition approach has worked. The analysis is completely lacking."
He said diazinon and chlorpyrifos pollution has declined not because of the coalition work, but due to the fact that these pesticides were replaced with pyrethroids.
Dick Pool, Administrator of Water for Fish, highlighted the role that agricultural pollution, along with water exports, plays in the Central Valley salmon decline and the subsequent loss of salmon fishing industry jobs.
"The Sacramento River fall run chinook salmon run crashed 97 percent from 2002 to 2009," he stated. "This caused a loss of $1.4 billion and 23,000 jobs to the economy. People lost their life savings and their homes went into foreclosure."
Pool praised the board for approving a study of the Delta flows needed to restore Central Valley salmon and Delta fish populations last year, but noted that the other major factor needed to recover salmon is to curb toxic agricultural discharges into the Delta.
Before the meeting, Jennings submitted to the board a letter by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance supporting the Clean Farms - Clean Water Campaign signed by over 125 fishing, environmental justice, tribal and conservation groups (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/04/06/18676537.php).
Mark Franco, headman of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, commented after signing the CSPA letter, "We stand with you and assert too that the board's continuing policies are damaging to all aspects of water and fishery management and must be stopped. Agribusiness has been allowed free rein on our public trust water - and now is the time to stand and fight."
The failure of the board to properly regulate agricultural pollution is just part of the toxic legacy of the Schwarzenegger administration. Besides granting growers virtual "permits to pollute," the Schwarzenegger administration fast-tracked a controversial Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative that failed to protect ocean waters from pollution, corporate aquaculture, military testing, wave energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. This failure to include water quality under the MLPA Initiative amounted to the evisceration of the Marine Life Protection Act, a 1999 law designed to create a network of "marine protected areas" along the California coast.
While corporate media and corporate environmental groups falsely portrayed Schwarzenegger as the "Green Governor," Schwarzenegger and his appointees, staff and collaborators did absolutely nothing to stop water pollution on Central Valley and coastal rivers and on California's ocean waters. The Regional Water Quality Board should break with the policies of the Schwarzenegger administration and support the aggressive regulation of agricultural water pollution in the Central Valley.
To read the Community Water Center's report, "Water & Health in the Valley: Nitrate Contamination of Drinking Water and the Health of San Joaquin Valley Residents," go to http://www.communitywatercente...
(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
Five Senate Republicans are holding the state budget hostage and the ransom they are asking for is the gutting of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), our state’s flagship environmental law.
Their proposal would sharply limit the rights of California citizens and local government agencies to enforce critical environmental protections. (See a CLCV analysis of the proposal here).
The proposal would sharply limit Californians' ability to go to court to challenge a construction project's environmental impact report — a document critical to final approval. The state attorney general would still be able to file such lawsuits.
Citizens would keep limited rights to file litigation, but only by making a deposit to the court of $50,000, or 1% of a construction project's costs if that amount is smaller.
Telecommunications companies seeking to expand their broadband networks would receive exemptions from environmental rules for related construction. Such a change would be a boon to firms like AT&T, which has contributed a total of $38,100 in campaign money to the five Republican senators since 2009.
CEQA was voted into law over 40 years ago in order to give all citizens a voice in what happens to their communities. For decades, CEQA has helped to keep major decisions over how to use local land at the local level—where the impacts are the greatest.
Because of the fact that CEQA has given citizens more transparency and more say over big, risky projects that impact the health and wellbeing of their community, it has been a prime target of attacks by those opposed to environmental protections. Year after year, these opponents use the state budget process to twist arms, call in favors, and try to make back-room deals to weaken CEQA. This year is no exception.
If the California legislature and state agencies want to change our environmental laws, they have a process in place to do so—and do so in a transparent way. Those serious about changing California’s environmental laws should use the democratic process to debate them and to then make decisions they’ll be held accountable for.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) now regulates much of the environmental procedures in the state, especially for new contstruction projects. It requires projects to go through a fairly vigorous environmental review process. Though it was passed in 1970, it was a relatively weak law until the California Supreme Court construed the law broadly in Friends of Mammoth vs. Board of Supervisors of Mono County. Republican Attorney General Evelle Younger, wrote a brief in favor of the more powerful CEQA, and is generally credited for giving CEQA real teeth.
But today's Republicans would picket Younger, saying that he hates Americans or some such nonsense.
Years of exemptions from California's principal environmental protection law are being crafted in the Capitol by the Schwarzenegger administration and lawmakers in both parties, who believe speedy approval of dozens of projects, public and private, will create jobs and spur economic growth.
*** *** ***
Environmentalists say the proposed end-run around the California Environmental Quality Act constitutes one of the most significant changes to CEQA since the law was written 40 years ago and inspired environmental legislation across the country. CEQA is a frequent target of lawsuits and legislation.
The proposals are supported by manufacturers, builders, engineers, developers, business interests and others. They say their intent is to expedite construction of numerous, still-unknown projects and jumpstart the weak economy. The proposals restrict the power of the courts to review the projects and give final authority over the projects to the administration. (CapWeekly)
It is telling just how far the environmental movement has fallen in that the current Governor, a Republican who likes to style himself an environmental champion, is seeking to neuter the law.
The process Schwarzenegger has in mind would be disastrous for future environmental review. The first kick in the shins to CEQA was the LA stadium deal, which the Governor and Ed Roski shoved through the legislature last year. Now, since that was so successful, Arnold figures that he'll just do that again, this time with a huge long list of projects rather than just one.
This process results in a willy-nilly approach to environmental review, offers favors to those with political or financial clout, and shrouds the process in secrecy. And with every supposed "vital project that will kickstart the economy," our environmental laws get a little weaker.
"We said at the time that they would encourage more of these proposals, and it's done exactly that," said Bill Magavern of Sierra Club California. "We're seeing a stepped-up attack on CEQA this year, and I think we're seeing development interests using the recession as an excuse for the CEQA rollbacks that they have been gunning for."
Democrats across the state are facing pressure to green light the projects as jobs projects. But, for years we have had these restrictions, and developers were able to comply. During the bubble, developers complied (grudgingly), but said that the process slowed down the huge expansion. (Imagine the vacant lots of houses sans CEQA).
CEQA is a vital component of our environmental system. You can't call yourself green by simply voting Aye on AB32 and then systematically deconstructing the focus of environmental regulation. Democrats should think twice before they jump into bed with the developers on this. There are serious long term policy consequences. But even for a term-limited legislator, they should understand that the politics isn't as easy.
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...)
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.
"Tapped" - which documents the human and environmental costs of
bottled water - will be screened at the Crest Theater WEDNESDAY, Oct. 21, by
opponents of controversial water bottling plant in Sacramento.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Contact: Save Our Water, Kristie Harris (916) 844-8755
Alliance for Democracy, Defending Water for Life, Nancy Price (530) 758-0726
ATTN: Daybook/Assignment Desk
'TAPPED' FILM PREVIEWS IN SACRAMENTO;
SPONSORS SAY IT SPELLS OUT WARNING TO RESIDENTS
SACRAMENTO - "Tapped" - which documents the human and environmental costs of
bottled water - will be screened at the Crest Theater WEDNESDAY, Oct. 21, by
opponents of controversial water bottling plant in Sacramento.
The Alliance for Democracy and Save Our Water will be hosting a screening at
5:30 p.m. and 8 p.m.
In the words of the film makers, the movie is a "behind-the-scenes look into
the unregulated and unseen world of an industry that aims to privatize and sell
back the one resource that ought never to become a commodity: water..."
Save Our Water will give a brief introduction to the film and take questions
afterwards about Nestle's plan to build a bottling plant in Sacramento and have
unlimited access to our municipal water. For more information about the film
visit http://www.tappedthemovie.com/
"This documentary exposes the damage caused to communities by Nestle. The film
stands as a
warning to the citizens of Sacramento: stop Nestle before it is too late,"
said Kristie Harris from Save Our Water.
Tickets will be regular box office prices: $9.50 for general admission, $6.00
for students & seniors. They can also purchased at:
http://www.tickets.com/browseo...
Save Our Water, the coalition of grassroots community activists mobilizing against the Nestlé Corporation's plan to build a new bottling plant in south Sacramento, is asking the Sacramento City Council to quickly adopt an urgency ordinance requiring a special permit for water bottling facilities in the city in order to stop the internationally boycotted corporate giant from coming to the Capital City.
Councilmember Kevin McCarty at last Tuesday's city council meeting asked for the issue to be agendized for a future city council meeting so that an urgency ordinance can be passed. This would require this type of project to come before the city council and be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
"We are excited about this development, but concerned about the timeline," said Evan Tucker, an activist with Save Our Water. "If the council does not agendize this issue soon, it could be too late for the new law to affect Nestle. We want to make sure the ordinance would affect Nestle, not just bottling plants in the future."
Vice Mayor Lauren Hammond also said she was concerned about water bottling in this city and wanted this issue addressed by the council, noted Tucker. However, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson supports the proposal by Nestlé to open up the plant, claiming it would bring "jobs" to Sacramento.
Nestlé claims the Sacramento plant would be a "micro-bottling plant," bottling only 50 million gallons of water per year. However, according to the Department of Utilities, the estimated water usage is 215 thousand - 320 thousand gallons of water per day (78 - 116 millions per year). "This would make Nestlé one of the top ten water users in Sacramento at a time when we are in our third consecutive year of a drought," emphasized Tucker.
Nestlé Waters North America decided to open a bottling plant in Sacramento after massive local resistance forced the corporation to drop its plan to open a plant in McCloud, located in northern California below the slopes of Mount Shasta. The people of McCloud gave Nestlé the boot, so now it's time for the people of Sacramento to do the same.
We don't need a huge corporation such as Nestlé making immense profits off a public trust resource, Sacramento's water supply, especially at a time when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein and California Legislators are campaigning for a peripheral canal to steal more water from the Sacramento River to supply unsustainable corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and unsustainable development in southern California.
Human rights activists and breast feeding advocates from throughout the world have boycotted the Swiss-based Nestlé Corporation since 1977 because of the millions of deaths of infants it has caused over the decades. The boycott, coordinated by groups including Baby Milk Action, International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) , Infant Feeding Action Coalition (INFACT) and Save the Children, was prompted by concern about the company's marketing of breast milk substitutes (infant formula), particularly in less economically developed countries, which campaigners claim contributes to the unnecessary death and suffering of babies, largely among the poor.
"Nestlé is targeted with the boycott because monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) finds it to be responsible for more violations of the World Health Assembly marketing requirements for baby foods than any other company," according to Baby Milk Action.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.5 million infants die around the world every year because they are not breastfed. Where water is unsafe, a bottle-fed child is up to 25 times more likely to die as a result of diarrhea than a breastfed child. "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued," according to UNICEF.
Anti-Nestlé organizations are sponsoring this year's Nestlé-Free Week from October 26 to November 1 in an effort to raise the profile of the boycott.
Do we want a criminal corporation responsible for the deaths of millions of infants come to Sacramento to make immense profits off our water supply?
Please spend a moment to contact Kevin McCarty and Lauren Hammond and let them know that you want the urgency ordinance passed in time to apply to Nestlé. Contact Kevin McCarty at (916) 808-7006 or KMcCarty [at] cityofsacramento.org and Lauren Hammond at (916) 808-7005 or lhammond [at] cityofsacramento.org
Also, Save Our Water will be holding a screening of Tapped at the Crest Theater at 1013 K Street, Sacramento, on Wednesday, October 21. There will be screenings at 5:30 pm and 8 pm. Tickets will be regular box office prices: $9.50 for general admission, $6.00 for students & seniors. You can also purchase them online prior to the event at:
http://www.tickets.com/browseo...
(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.
Arnold got to talking about vetoing the Legislature's budget plan, and it immediately becomes clear what is going on here: The Shock Doctrine. The Republicans, including Governor Schwarzenegger, are using the budget disaster to destroy labor and environmental gains. At this point they don't even try to hide it: they are going after CEQA, going after labor contracts, and going after the generations old experience of public investment in infrastructure.
First, from the Governor:
Well, read through it. You see, that it is one thing, when you say economic recovery package. But then read through it. It actually doesn't do anything and it makes it more difficult, actually, to do certain projects. And we will give you a briefing on the details -- Will Kempton can take you through the infrastructure package and all of those kind of things. They have not at all addressed the CEQA. They have not at all addressed the public-private partnerships. They have not addressed at all that we can go and -- as a matter of fact, they made it tough, that we can lay off people. They even said that we have to ask labor if we can have the furloughs that we recommended.
This is why I called it yesterday "Legislating Under Duress", the Governor and the Republicans have a gun to the Democrats' head in the budget disaster. The thing is that not only does the GOP think that the Democrats will eventually blink, but going over the brink wouldn't be that big of a deal. They get to slash and burn through labor and forget about the government. It is good to be the Green Governor isn't it?
Speaker Bass calls this what it is, Russian roulette with our future. After all the gun isn't really on the politicians of California. Sure, they'll get some political blowback, but the gun is pointing squarely at the people of California. The Governor claims to negotiate, then takes his marbles home with him. From the Speaker:
I am frankly surprised how willing Governor Schwarzenegger is to push California over a cliff when he clearly is not fully aware of what the bills we passed today do. The governor said we didn't do economic stimulus. We did $3 billion worth of bond acceleration to get job-creating infrastructure projects moving for transportation, drought relief, park restoration and green technologies. He said we didn't address CEQA-- we expedited CEQA for transportation projects and surplus property and we eased restrictions for hospital construction. All these actions will also help create jobs. He said we didn't address public private partnerships. We expanded public private partnerships - despite opposition from labor.
This is a stick-up, an attempt to drive us back into the third world of economic inequity, class warfare, and a grim future. Say goodbye to Pat Brown's California, say hello to Kurt Russell's.
Arnold has been making some rather shocking vetoes of important legislation this week, including a cave-in to Sarah Palin on port air quality and the veto of the anti-rescission bill. On balance his record on bills this week is atrocious.
But there are a few bright spots, including a bill that has the potential to revolutionize land use in California. Arnold has signed Sen. Darrell Steinberg's SB 375, a bill that links land-use planning to the AB 32 global warming targets. The intent is to eliminate sprawl by limiting sprawl and favoring infill development.
The logic is clear - sprawl creates more auto traffic, and more auto emissions, which worsens global warming. 38% of greenhouse gas emissions in California come from transportation. The obvious solution is to crack down on sprawl and encourage infill development - urban density served by mass transit. SB 375 includes language streamlining CEQA review for infill development that meets carbon emissions reduction goals.
That's an important element of an anti-sprawl, anti-global warming effort. It's the Portland model - you can't stop sprawl merely by limiting growth on the edge of a metro area. You must also encourage infill, dense development and provide the mass transit to serve it.
It's also vital to California's economic recovery. As I have argued before, we must redefine the California Dream by using urban density to provide for affordable living and economic security.
There are still some outstanding issues regarding SB 375 - business groups were lobbying to have urban commercial projects given the same CEQA streamlining as residential projects:
Some business groups remained critical because the bill did not allow commercial development to benefit from CEQA changes. And some local officials said it overreached by allowing the state to dictate greenhouse-gas reduction goals for each region.
Steinberg said he promised the governor that next year he will clarify that projects funded by the 2006 voter-approved transportation bonds will be exempt. But Steinberg said he agreed only to have "good-faith" discussions about the commercial development issue.
"The balance we struck was so precarious, we couldn't pile anything more on top of the bill," Steinberg said.
California cannot afford sprawl. SB 375 is a big step forward in our efforts to redefine the California Dream and follow Portland's successful model into a prosperous 21st century future.
(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.
FDR at the California Progress Report reports that a budget deal seems near, and it may come at the expense of CEQA - or it may not. Depends on who you talk to, I guess:
[Villines] said that he had worked all weekend and that "all" had agreed that some fix needed to be made with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state's basic environmental law, which he called an "AB 32 fix".
And Núñez:
I specifically asked Nunez about changes to AB 32 and CEQA and he said flat out that there would be no AB 32 changes and none were proposed in the outline he had seen. The changes that have been bandied about by the Republicans all along are not squarely within the language of AB 32 but have been to CEQA. The Speaker did indicate that he was about to brief his caucus and that any changes to environmental laws would not be made without checking with the environmental community. He was reluctant to discuss what had been agreed to privately.
I cannot imagine in what world giving in to the GOP demands on CEQA, in any form, would be anything other than a catastrophic disaster, validating the Senate Republicans' unconscionable hostage tactics.
Now, there could be no cause for such concern, and one hopes that our Democratic leadership understands the bad precedent and effect such a compromise would have. If anyone in Sacramento thinks that by giving the GOP any of what they want, they'll ensure anything other than an even worse fight next year, they're nuts.
