PCL Insider: News from the Capitol

STATE BUDGET HOLD-UP ENDS:  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EXAMINED

As you probably know, the State Legislature finally passed a budget.  Fifty-two days after the start of the fiscal year, two Senate Republicans finally added their "aye" votes to the votes of all the Senate Democrats, thus achieving the two-thirds vote required.

What was the pound of flesh extracted for this vote?  Republican leaders in the Senate were asking for two things: (1) $700 million more in cuts, and (2) an amendment of California's premier environmental law – the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - to eliminate consideration of global warming impacts during the normal environmental review process.  The Governor promised to deliver on the first matter weeks ago. 

Their second demand not only has nothing to do with the budget process but is also bad policy.  However, because the budget requires a two-thirds vote, a compromise had to be reached.  Thus, the Legislature passed SB 97, a bill that exempts certain transportation and flood projects from normal CEQA review. SB 97 allows a project to go forward without an analysis of its climate emissions if it is already regulated by the Air Resources Board under AB 32 – The Global Warming Solutions Act.  Provisions of the bill sunset on January 1, 2010.

PCL is still analyzing the new language, but it appears that the Democratic leadership was able to minimize the negative effects of SB 97.  But let's focus for a moment on the process. Most non-fiscal bills can pass and become law on a majority vote. In the normal situation, in other words, California does have a "majority rule" rule. But the budget doesn't operate according to "majority rule" principles. Since it takes a two-thirds vote to pass the budget, minority legislators (currently that means the Republicans) can in effect turn "majority rule" into "minority rule." That's what happened with the amendment to CEQA.

Global warming is an admitted environmental problem – a huge problem. And CEQA covers it. CEQA requires governmental agencies to reduce or eliminate the global warming impacts of projects if it's economically feasible to do so. That's just common sense! To demand that CEQA be amended to let global warming impacts get a "free ride" is not something that a majority of the Legislature would ever support – because it's such a bad idea.  For minority Republicans in this budget session, though, responding to the desires of the development and oil industry, the minority saw a way to leverage such a result. That's why the budget was so late.

Those Californians doing the hard work of caring for the elderly, or our children, small business owners who make their living contracting with the state, students who've earned low-income grants for college, and our already strapped university systems paid the price of this gambit.  Their pocket books were hit hard with extravagantly high interest rates as they tried to keep afloat or buy school books using loans.  Billions of dollars of the state's bills went unpaid, meaning everyone on the receiving end of those payments didn't get paid when they were entitled to.

After the debate was done, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez called out several cases in particular where small businesses and facilities that care for low-income elderly or children, were severely impacted by the delayed budget.  In one particular case, the facility owner lost $4,000 to interest on loans.  She will not be reimbursed for that $4,000, but don't worry, Legislators will be able to recoup their salaries. 

This is really not a "partisan" issue, though it was clearly minority Republican Senators who caused the budget havoc this time around. The state budget should not be held hostage and Californians should not suffer just so 15 members of the Legislature can force through a measure that would not otherwise win approval.

These past weeks have revealed a couple of things. First, Senate Republicans (excluding Senator Maldonado who was the one lone Republican to vote for the budget in July) are clearly out of step with the mainstream. Californians do care about global warming, and want prompt actions to address it. Second, it might be high time for the state to reevaluate the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget. Most other states do not have this requirement, and California was the only state with a budget so seriously delayed by this "minority rule" provision.

FLOOD NEWS (AND WHY WE CARE)

What a difference a week makes!

Last week: no budget, and little progress on flood legislation
This week: a budget (hurrah!), and a flurry of activity on flood legislation

Part VI: Is that light I see at the end of the tunnel?

The various pieces of flood legislation still alive in the state legislature are, at long last, MOVING!  Flood bill authors and staff are working together on crafting a comprehensive flood management solution for California.  PCL and other environmental groups spent all of Wednesday in meetings with some of the legislative staff working the flood bills, as well as with the Department of Water Resources and the staff in the office of the Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Núñez.

We are hopeful that a strong package will be presented to the Legislature soon, a package that keeps the best of AB 5, AB 70, AB 156, AB 162, AB 1452, SB 5, and SB 17.

And now, in a special PCL Insider feature, we travel inside the mind of a typical reader to answer your subconscious questions and concerns.

[cue fog machine, haunting music...]

PCL Insider reader: I get it that flood safety is important.  But why is the Planning & Conservation League, an environmental group, so involved?  Why six articles in a row about flood legislation?  And how am I supposed to keep track of all those bill numbers?

PCL Insider: Dear Reader, you raise several excellent questions.

First, let's talk about why PCL is so involved in flood legislation. Dear Mother Nature handles flood by sending the floodwater into natural floodplains.  California, traditionally, has handled flood by sending the floodwater through unnaturally high and narrow river channels.  These two approaches are inherently in conflict, and both sides lose.  Nature loses because channelized rivers reduce riparian and floodplain habitat important for wildlife.  California loses because the current levee-based system (besides being extremely expensive to maintain) cannot adequately protect existing properties, infrastructure, and, most importantly, people. 

A system which restores some of the natural flood control features (e.g. setback levees which provide a rudimentary floodplain) and takes advantage of opportunities for temporary storage of floodwater (e.g. in flood bypasses), provides both better flood safety AND better habitat. 

So, PCL cares about flood because doing flood well means doing good for the environment, as well as for public safety and the economy.

Now, you also asked why this is the 6th flood article in a row. This is the year for flood legislation.  Similar legislative efforts failed last year, and we want all of you Insider readers up to date and ready to jump into the fray if necessary. 

In that vein, we're going to try something new and have a flood-focused PCL Insider readership call next Monday, August 27, at noon.  Use the instructions below to call in for a live update from PCL's Jonas Minton and Barb Byrne.

Time: Monday, August 27, noon (PST)
Call-in number: 1-712-432-2455
Access code: 58735

Your final question was: How am I supposed to keep track of all the bill numbers? Well, the state of California provides lots of information on current and past legislation at www.leginfo.ca.gov. And feel free to contact PCL staff for more information.

[fog lifts, music fades...]

Okay, good to have you back.

All joking aside, the Legislature needs to address California's flood risk right away.  We know that many existing levees provide inadequate protection.  By refusing to act, the Legislature is, in effect, choosing to put people in harm's way.

Senator Steinberg's mission of bringing together a comprehensive flood package this year is not an easy one.  PCL and other environmental groups will do everything we can to help achieve the shared goal of strong, safe, and environmentally-friendly flood protection for California.

WORKSHOP: LINKING LAND USE AND WATER IN THE LOS ANGELES REGION

If you live or work near the city of angels, get ready for the Linking Land Use and Water in the Los Angeles Region workshop presented by the Local Government Commission, CSU San Bernardino Water Resources Institute, and the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council!

When
Thursday, September 13, 2007
9:30am-4:00pm

Where
Center for Healthy Communities, California Endowment
1000 North Alameda Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Why
Topics will include:
- Water and Land Use - What's the Connection?
- The Ahwahnee Water Principles
- Planning for Water-Wise Growth
- Sustainable Site Design Strategies (LID)

To register visit http://www2.lgc.org/events/