August 23, 2007

Sloppy drafting or double-cross?

I generally agree with Maviglio's take here that the environmental bill that the Republicans got as part of the budget settlement was little more than a fig leaf and might have even strengthened environmental protections, which was surely not their intention.

But one piece of the bill -- the part dealing with potential lawsuits to block transportation and flood control projects -- is especially intriguing. Tom Adams, president of the California League of Conservation Voters, tells me that he thinks the provision does exactly the opposite of what the Republicans intended.

If you recall, GOP lawmakers said they didn't want any lawsuits filed over AB 32 issues at least unitl the ARB adopted its regs implementing the bill. But the language in SB 97, the bill that was passed as part of the budget, seems to say that its ban on lawsuits applies only to those projects already subject to ARB regulation. And then that ban sunsets in 2010. But since no one expects those regs to be adopted before 2010, that means the ban on lawsuits that the Republicans fought so hard for would never take effect.

I have been assured by a Senate staffer involved in the drafting that the bill does what the Republicans intended to do. But it sure doesn't read that way.

For those of you who care, here is the language in question:

SEC. 2. Section 21097 is added to the Public Resources Code, to read: 21097. (a) The failure to analyze adequately the effects of greenhouse gas emissions otherwise required to be reduced pursuant to regulations adopted by the State Air Resources Board under Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code in an environmental impact report, negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or other document required pursuant to this division for either a transportation project funded under the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Chapter 12.49 (commencing with Section 8879.20) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code), or a project funded under the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 (Chapter 1.699 (commencing with Section 5096.800) of Division 5), does not create a cause of action for a violation of this division. Posted by dweintraub on August 23, 2007 2:15 PM