Bill to change statute of limitations for polluters stalls out
by Brian Leubitz
When people complain about the Legislature, it is precisely because of things like this story from the always interesting California Watch.
Under pressure from construction, architect and other industry groups, state legislators killed a bill that would have closed a loophole used by businesses to evade pollution lawsuits.
Sponsored by Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-Long Beach, AB 1207 arose out of a lawsuit in Carson, where residents discovered in 2009 that for nearly five decades, their families have been exposed to dangerous levels of cancer-causing toxins emanating from their properties. There is no state law that explicitly puts time limits on pollution cases, which often are discovered decades after the toxic dumping occurs.
However, Shell Oil Co. and a local developer were able to initially get the resident lawsuit thrown out by claiming the state's 10-year time limit on "construction defect" claims had expired.
It is never hard to kill a bill that can be even tangentially tied to the evil "trial lawyers". However, in this situation, and many others, lawsuits are the only ramification for Californians who have been well and royally screwed by big companies. This time it was a developer and Shell Oil, but you can trace these same general circumstances to many other cases.
The buyers and renters of homes in Carson simply had no way to know that they were moving into property that was on top of a toxic waste dump. But Shell knew, and at some level, the developers should have known if they did their due diligence. But money comes first, and that didn't happen because any answers would be inconvenient.
And so a generation later, people in Carson are stuck with toxic property. And somehow there is a statue of limitations for an event that they could have no way of knowing? It is a perversion of the concept of statute of limitations, which is intended to force people to act on situations of which they are aware.
Best of luck to Asm. Furutani and any other legislators who take up this bill. This shouldn't happen to other Californians. But what this really speaks of is the sheer power of lobbyists and industry in Sacramento. I try to imagine the situation where a majority of Californians prefers this outcome, and I just can't imagine such a world. No, this was all about moneyed interests against a diffuse sense of right and wrong.
I suppose it shouldn't surprise much that the money won.
One of the benefits of newly redrawn maps for me is the ability to vote for Fran Pavley, running for state Senate District 27. Recently, former speaker of the Assembly Bob Hertzberg has expressed interest in the race. His stated rationale: he's a moderate, the district is moderate, he's a Valley guy.
As the next Congressional fight over payroll tax extensions and unemployment benefits and pipelines gets set up in the next few weeks for either its final chapter or to be kicked down the road a bit farther, one or the other, you're going to hear a lot from our Republican friends about how much they value work and workers; most especially, they'll tell you, they value American jobs for American workers.
After all, they'll say, creating American jobs is the most important thing of all.
But if we were to look back over just the last few months, some would tell us, we could quickly find examples of how Republicans promote ideas that don't seem to value work or workers at all, much less American jobs.
Well as it turns out, "some" seem to be right; to illustrate one of those examples we'll look back a month or two or three to a time some Republicans might wish was long, long, ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
(Written by Jenesse Miller and cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
Listen up, candidates for office in California: Independent voters care about the environment.
A groundbreaking new statewide poll of California voters who decline-to-state (DTS) an affiliation with any political party reveals the strong environmental and other progressive values of this poorly-understood but growing bloc of voters. The poll was commissioned by the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (CLCV Education Fund), CLCV's sister organization and the non-partisan voter engagement arm of the environmental movement in California. The research was conducted by widely-respected polling firm Tulchin Research.
This in-depth survey is the first of its kind to explore in detail DTS (or independent) voters' opinions on many of today’s most controversial issues and that is being shared with the broader public.
With DTS voters increasing from 15 to 20 percent of California’s electorate just since 2006, the purpose of the public opinion survey was to better understand this influential swing and rapidly growing voter group and its attitudes toward environmental issues and other timely topics.
Capitol Weekly was one of the first to cover the results of this groundbreaking poll:
Two out of three of California’s decline-to-state voters consider themselves conservationists, believe climate change is a growing problem that needs to be addressed and say environmental regulations provide critical protections for air, land and water, according to a new survey.
The statewide survey commissioned by the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund is “the first of its kind to explore in detail DTS voters’ opinions on many of today’s most controversial issues and that is being shared with the broader public,” the group said in releasing the results.
The survey found that DTS voters are solidly pro-environment and support a wide range of conservation policies:
Two-thirds (65 percent) consider themselves to be “conservationists”.
Notably, DTS voters agree climate change is occurring and is a major problem that needs to be addressed by a 2-to-1 margin (63 percent).
When DTS voters were asked about their opinions on environmental regulations made by our lawmakers, an overwhelming 69 percent believe environmental regulations provide an important benefit to our society and help to protect our air, land and water. In contrast, just 1-in 5 DTS voters (21 percent) believe environmental regulations do more harm than good.
Today, Republicans in Washington D.C. held a hearing on increasing the amount of land dedicated to oil shale extraction. Oil shale is a rock that contains a waxy substance called kerogen. When kerogen is heated to extremely high temperatures, it releases a substance that can be turned into crude oil. As with so many things, however, the devil is in the details when it comes to oil shale.
It takes a lot of rock to create oil shale. In fact, pound for pound, oil shale has about the same amount of energy as a baked potato. Given that, in many cases the amount of energy recovered from oil shale is less than the amount of energy used in the extraction process. If that wasn't enough, the technology to develop oil shale is not commercially viable and could likely depend heavily on already scarce water in the West.
So it's with great concern that today's hearing highlighted legislation that would give away millions of acres of public land for oil shale extraction and provide oil companies with more taxpayer subsidies. I hope that California's voice on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources - Central Valley Congressman Jim Costa - will stand strong against these attempts by House Republicans to sell off our country's natural resources.
Congressman Costa represents an area that's been hard hit by environmental challenges - from air pollution that is among the worst in the country to lead and contaminates in the water. The Central Valley knows firsthand the cost of dirty air and water - high asthma rates in our children and many health issues in pregnant women and the elderly.
Given this, I hope that Congressman Costa will speak up on behalf of other communities that may suffer a similar fate if increased oil shale extraction is allowed.
After all, are we willing to sell our health, our children's well-being, and clean air and water for a source of energy that's worth as much as a baked potato?
Pablo RodrÃguez is the Executive Director of Communities for a New California (CNC), a statewide civil rights advocacy organization. Prior to CNC, Pablo worked as a Public Policy Consultant as well as serving as Director of the Dolores Huerta Community Organizing Institute. Pablo is committed to achieving public policy that is socially, economically, and environmentally just for California's families.
The global population will pass 7 billion within days. The worldwide oil supply is dwindling. We're already living in an atmosphere which has exceeded ideal carbon concentrations. The CO2 parts per billion are projected to rise exponentially in the decades to come, together with related environmental and human health impacts. And on Friday, San Diego is poised to commit the next 40 years to building more highways at the expense of desperately needed transit - unless they hear from us.
Scheme comes out of AB32, the landmark climate change bill
by Brian Leubitz
In Washington, Congress is twiddling its thumbs as they debate what science stopped debating years ago. Rather than aggresively taking on the environmental challenges of our lifetime and building a new sustainable economy, we are pretending the problems don't exist. Sure, we apparently care about the budget deficit that we are handing future generations, but a livable planet is apparently a luxury that we don't care to pass on.
But California, as they say, is different. We passed AB32, with a Republican Governor, yet. And today, we have a real system to put in place:
California has cap & trade - or will once the program starts ramping up next year. Today's approval by the state's Air Resources Board was described by chair Mary Nichols as like "moving a large army a few feet in one direction."
The objective that "army" is marching - or shuffling - toward is, of course, the fulfillment of California's goal to roll back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the end of this decade. With at least a semi-intentional pun, Nichols calls cap & trade the "capstone" of that effort, although the program is expected to produce at most, 20% of the hoped-for reductions in carbon emissions. The rest will come from other measures either lumped under or related to the state's Global Warming Solutions Act, more widely known as AB 32.
Those other measures include stricter standards for tailpipe emissions, a "low-carbon fuels standard" (still being worked on), and the ambitious-but-attainable goal to get a third of the state's electricity from renewable energy sources, also by 2020. (KQED Climate Change Blog)
Across California, cities and counties are actually doing something about climate change. In fact, San Francisco recently announced that the City has reduced carbon emissions levels 12 percent below 1990 levels.
There is a lot more hard work to come, but it is really, really good to see this unanimous vote on the cap and trade system.
Meanwhile, the GOP leadership asks us to consider absurd bills like H.R. 1505, which this week passed the House Committee on Natural Resources, where I sit as a Member. This legislation will hand over control of all public lands within 100 miles of the borders - like our national parks, forests, and beaches - to U.S. Customs and Border Protections. Ironically, it's named the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act. Under H.R. 1505, without any public notice, U.S. Customs and Border Protection could build roads and gates and install surveillance equipment in places that Americans treasure - from Glacier National Park in Montana to Cleveland National Forest in California and Olympic National Park in Washington. This legislation would, in effect, hand over the keys to many of the most beautiful places in America - places you and I own as the birthright of being an American, places that with proper stewardship our great grandchildren will one day own too.
(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
Every day for the past couple of weeks I've been checking Governor Brown's website to see if he's taken action on California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) and Green California's priority legislation. I've also been following press stories closely to look for hints on whether he's going to sign or veto particular bills. And most days, not much happens. On Monday though, Brown posted an update on bill signings and vetoes. I had almost reached the end of the list, thinking he again hadn't acted on any of our priority bills, when I saw something very sad - our governor had vetoed AB 650 (Blumenfield), which would have established a task force to find solutions to California's transit funding crisis.
This is particularly upsetting to me - both as a transit rider and a environmental advocate - since this was not the first pro-transit bill Brown vetoed this year. This summer he vetoed SB 582 (Yee), which would have established a commuter benefit pilot program to encourage employees to ride public transit, carpool, or bike to work.
This is a matter well within the jurisdication and competence of the Assembly and Senate Transportation Committees. Moreover, Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission are also equipped to probe into these matters.
Rather than creating a new entity, let's use the resources we have.
I understand Governor Brown's point here, but unfortunately, none of these bodies have succeeded in solving or getting close to finding a solution to California's transportation funding crisis. Over the past several years, the State has cut funding to public transit multiple times. Transit agencies throughout the state are hurting, and most have been forced to cut service and/or raise fairs.
I don't own a car so our transportation funding crisis has had a big impact on my life. This summer, my bus fare increased for the third time in recent years, and last year the bus line that used to take me to my favorite park was cut entirely.
But at least I can still travel to work quickly via transit. Others aren’t so lucky: service cuts have forced them to walk long distances or to take circuitous routes with multiple transfers to reach their destinations. Here in Oakland I've heard many stories of students who don't show up for class because they cannot afford the increased bus fares.
Once again The Fates have come our way to provide a story, and once again, we have a contender for the "Ironic Story Of The Year".
It's got everything you need for serious irony: an irascible comedian who mocked religion at every opportunity, a city that loved him, and the rich coincidence of his having been born at the crossroads of New York City's communities of religious education.
And that's why, today, we'll be talking about the effort to name the street right next to Manhattan's Seminary Row...Carlin Street.
(And before we go further, a language warning: we'll be quoting George Carlin liberally, and that means there may be present today certain of the seven words with which he created one of his best known routines. You are now officially warned.)
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) was talking to colleagues about extending the same proposal to other job-producing projects, possibly including sports facility projects in Sacramento, Santa Clara and San Diego, as well as renewable energy developments.
Anschutz Entertainment Group sought the special treatment after a competing stadium proposal in the City of Industry won an environmental waiver from the Legislature in 2009. Its backers argue that it deserves special treatment because it would create tens of thousands of jobs.
I've see articles (obviously from the right) claiming that Calirfornia is dominated by "Green Jihadis" and its destroying the economy. Usually these articles call for the reform (mostly removal) of California's environmental laws and link the 12% unemployment as justification. But based on what's happening above are the Democrats coming around to that line? Do they see a link between enivornment and unemployment here? Or are they desperate enough for votes in 2012 since California's economy has barely nudged and the Democrats have a full sweep of state government?
(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)
At the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), we often know early on what bills will be contentious in the legislature. We plan ahead and work on securing votes of legislators who are on the fence. But at other times, good bills seem to be sailing through. This was the case with SB 582, which would establish a commuter benefit pilot program. Unfortunately though, the key word here is "was".
The pilot program would allow metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and local air districts to jointly adopt a regional commute benefit requirement. Employers in these regions would have the following options:
Give employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal law;
Offer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;
Provide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.
What's great about commuter benefits is that they benefit both employees and employers, especially if employers choose the first option. As someone who has participated in commuter benefit programs as an employee and administered a program for a non-profit I used to work for, I can attest that allowing employees to pay for transit expenses with pre-tax dollars saves money for employers and employees.
Sounds pretty non-controversial, right?
Well, it was at first. Republican Senator Bill Emmerson introduced the bill early this year and it quickly earned bi-partisan support. The Senate passed the bill in May with a 36-2 vote.
SB 582 continued to sail along in the Assembly. As late as June 20th, there was no registered opposition to the bill, which made sense to us since the bill doesn't cost the state or employers any funds and helps reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gasses related to transportation.
But at the last moment, as the bill was headed to the Assembly floor, the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association came out against the bill. Yes, the Chamber, which is supposed to support business interests, and the Taxpayers Association, which is supposed to support taxpayer interests, came out against a bill that would save businesses money and cost nothing to taxpayers!
We interrupt your regularly scheduled budget crisis to bring you this message about your water. Perhaps it is just me, but I like my water to be free of all sorts of undisclosed chemicals. But the oil and gas companies? Well, they drink Evian of course, so what does it matter?! Toss some random hydrocarbons in there, it is ALL good.
Fortunately, Asm. Bob Wieckowski has introduced, and passed out of the Assembly, AB 591 to force the energy companies to disclose their chemicals. You see Dick Cheney, never know for his love of transparency, thought it a great idea to keep a bunch of chemicals that will enter our water table secret. Our friends over at Credo and the CA League of Conservation Voters are working to make sure that bill passes the Senate. They have a petition that you should probably sign on to letting your Senator know about your support for the measure.
California's water is threatened by toxic, carcinogenic chemicals -- and we don't even know what they are.
High Pressure Hydraulic Fracturing (or fracking) is a dangerous method of drilling for oil and gas that is responsible for contaminating water across the country. The practice is spreading at an alarming rate, and California's huge Monterey Shale formation is one of the top prizes for frackers.
Astonishingly, thanks to the work of Dick Cheney and his secretive, industry-friendly 2005 energy policy, fracking has been exempted from EPA regulation, and as such, companies can largely conceal the long list of chemicals they pump deep underground, through our water table.
A vital new state law would change that, and set the strongest standards in the nation for fracking chemical disclosure.1 The bill, AB 591, has passed the Assembly, and is now in the State Senate, where the oil and gas industry's numerous allies are working to stop it. We can't let them. Please urge your senator to pass AB 591.
After you have signed the petition, consider going one step further by contacting your Senator's office and letting them know that you think disclosure is important. Now, we only need a simple majority, but Democrats occasionally need a bit of spine stiffening when the lobbyists descend. And on this they will surely descend.
"On June 6, 2011, the Fort Calhoun pressurized water nuclear reactor 20 miles north of Omaha, Nebraska entered emergency status due to imminent flooding from the Missouri River. A day later, there was an electrical fire requiring plant evacuation.
Then, on June 8th, NRC event reports confirmed the fire resulted in the loss of cooling for the reactor's spent fuel pool. The discussion includes specific details of the technical failures at Fort Calhoun, the risks of coolant loss at overcrowded "spent" fuel pools, and the national hazards of nuclear facilities along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, and other water sites during the current period of floods and climate change."
While much of America enjoyed an extended holiday, it wasn't a seamless weekend for everyone in the region. San Diego CityBeat notes that at the San Onofre Nuclear Station, 70 gallons of sulfuric acid were spilled -- the fifth spill in just over two years. As CityBeat notes, there was a hydrazine spill in February 2011 ("Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable"), and two much worse spills of sulfuric acid -- two spills in the same July 2010 day, and another spill in April of 2009.
The spill comes one month to the day after hundreds of locals attended a public meeting to voice concerns about safety at San Onofre, where an on-site safety inspector from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told the crowd that despite limited progress recently, "San Onofre is the leader still in safety concerns reported to the NRC."
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.
In America, today, there are three kinds of drivers: those who look at the other gas pumps down at the ol' gas station and think: "Oh my God, I can't believe how much that guy's spending on gas", those who look at their own pump down at the ol' gas station and think: "Oh my God, I can't believe how much I'm spending on gas" - and those who are doing both at the same time.
Naturally, this has brought the Sarah Palins of the world back out in public, and once again the mantra of "Drill, Baby, Drill" can be heard all the way from the Florida coast to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But what if those folks have it exactly backwards?
What if, in a world of depleting oil resources, the last thing you want to do is use yours up?
To put it another way: why isn't all our oil part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
I just bought a new car and will never need to buy gasoline again. The reason I have been able to happily drive past increasingly expensive gas stations isn't because I haven't been driving the car, it's because the car I bought runs entirely on electricity.
My decision to purchase an electric car was driven by a variety of reasons, but the simplest reason was this: The cost of filling up with gas is just too much. I'm not just writing about the price we're paying at the pump; I am also referring to the cost to our future generations, our national security, and our economy. As a veteran, I have seen the toll these costs take and I am doing what I can to stop contributing to the problem.
As one might expect with a screen name of "California Condor" I am a nature lover, and a user of the California State Park System. (I am an amateur nature and wildlife photographer who has been fortunate enough to have had some of my photographs published. One of these was of one of our parks: http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2003... ) The threatened closure of these parks causes me personal anguish.
The California park system is extensive, and I can't profess to having visited even half the parks in the system, or on the closure list. Personally, I have a preference for mountains over beaches, but believe in protecting as much as we can.
