|
|
Legislative Updates 2009Sierra Club 2009 Legislative Update #20 “The way to get good ideas is to get lots of ideas, and throw the bad ones away.” ~Linus Pauling June 11, 2009 Unfortunately, no bad ideas are being thrown out at the Arizona Capitol right now. They just keep passing them in the form of legislation. From the moratorium on rules – you can move forward with a rule if you can demonstrate it will not kill or make people sick within the next fiscal year – to the exemptions from our aquifer protection program – Multifuels from Texas gets a big fat exemption from our water quality protections so they can secure funding for a natural gas storage facility – to a long list of exemptions for sand and gravel companies and big agriculture, the bad ideas just keep coming. The coming week will bring even more of them in the form of strike-everything amendments (remember that is when they gut a bill and change it entirely) and bills that were thought to be on the shelf. The Legislature has still not conveyed the budget to Governor Brewer. They say they are waiting so they can work it out. I expect nothing good to come of this and would not be surprised if they just sent it up at the last minute to force her hand on a veto. I fear that the final budget will look way too much like the budget the legislature just passed. I apologize for the length of this update. They are hearing so many bills at once, it is just ridiculous. This week please contact your Senator and ask him or her to oppose SB1171 rule making; state agencies; moratorium (Pearce, Gorman, C. Gray, et al). It puts a moratorium on any rule making until June 30, 2010, if the rule would have any additional costs associated with it for other agencies or for anyone else. There are many rules that might have an additional cost up front, but save us money later, plus many that have a minimal cost associated with them but have enormous benefits. Prevention is cheaper than trying to clean up or fix things after the fact – consider groundwater contamination, for example. While there is an exemption in the bill for rules that are aimed at preventing an imminent threat to public health and safety, it does not address general threats to public health and safety, plus the definition of imminent threat is very narrow. Apparently it would have to be something that would make you sick or kill you in Fiscal Year 2010. What if it was something that killed you much more slowly? Considering the poor air quality in several of our urban areas, should we really wait to clean it up? Considering the importance of water in our arid state, shouldn’t we do everything, and as soon as possible, to ensure that it is protected? This provision is also in the budget, unfortunately. And ask them to support SB1403 renewable, high-wage industries incentives (Leff, Mason, Reagan, et al). It provides income and property tax incentives for new or expanded renewable energy businesses in Arizona when certain job creation, wage and capital investment requirements are met, and terminates on December 31, 2015. The idea is to promote manufacturing of renewable components while also providing good jobs. This is another important step in moving us away from our fossil fuel-based economy. To email your state senator or to find his/her direct phone number, click on senators or paste http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S into your browser. If you are not sure who your senator is, please go to http://www.vote-smart.org or call the Senate information desk. If you're outside the Phoenix area, you can call your legislators’ offices toll free at 1-800-352-8404. In the Phoenix area call (602) 926-3559 (Senate) and ask them to connect you with your legislators. Here is what is coming up this week: Monday, June 15 Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Infrastructure, and Public Debt at 1:30pm in SHR109 SB1118 technical correction; defined contribution plan (S. Allen) has a strike everything on air quality; begin actual construction. It addresses permits under the Clean Air Act including Class I permits which are required for facilities with the potential to emit 100 tons per year of any criteria air pollutant, 10 tons per year of any single Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAPS) or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAPS. It redefines “begin actual construction” by excluding activities that you would normally associate with beginning actual construction. They include clearing and grading, demolition, installation of roads, installations of pipes, installation of warehouses, office building, installation of concrete forms, footers, foundations and the list goes on. None of it would be considered beginning actual construction which triggers permitting. It is ridiculous and is again one of those bills that is being promoted to help a facility that violated the law and now wants to get out of it. ADEQ can’t consider any of these activities or how they perform them in addressing the company’s permit if this is passed. OPPOSE. SB1147 greenhouse emissions; regulations; fuel economy (Allen S, Gould, Pearce R, et al) requires express legislative authorization in order for any state agency to adopt or enforce a state or regional program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or motor vehicle fuel economy. This is a silly bill that will likely have limited impact as most of this will end up being enacted by the federal government. Nonetheless, it sends a bad message and could have an indirect negative impact on implementation of some programs. OPPOSE. SB1157 department of environmental quality; continuation (Nelson, Allen C, Huppenthal, et al) continues the ADEQ through 2019. SUPPORT. SB1225 water exchange contracts; technical correction (S. Pierce) has a strike everything amendment on dust control; best management practices. It does several things which will contribute to poor air quality. It adds four people to the agricultural best management practices committee – someone representing a cattle feedlot, a dairy, a poultry operation and a swine operation; this just means more foxes guarding the henhouse (see poultry provisions). The bill also shifts the regulation of particulates, such as it is, of poultry and swine operations as well as feedlots and dairies from the county to this state best management practices committee and to limited, if any, real oversight. Members of the best management practices committee are appointed by the Governor and are responsible for adopting an agricultural general permit that outlines best management practices for regulated agricultural activities in order to reduce particulate (PM-10) emissions. As drafted, the bill will mean backsliding on our state implementation plan for particulates and violates the Clean Air Act as there is no guarantee the best management practices will be as strong as or stronger than those required at the county level. These facilities are not your family farms, but represent industrial agriculture and all of its associated environmental problems. They should be regulated as such. OPPOSE. SB1256 aggregate mine reclamation; fees (S. Allen) has a strike everything titled mining omnibus. It allows the mine inspector to collect fees for education and training and for changes in reclamation plans. I see no issues with it. SB1259 aggregate mine reclamation; initiation; extension (Allen S) includes one more factor for allowing reclamation to be delayed. The state mine inspector can extend the period in which to initiate reclamation with up to three subsequent five year extensions, if the owner or operator of an exploration operation or aggregate mining unit demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that the project or operation will resume, based on a consideration of changing market conditions and demand for the commodity being mined, in addition to the factors already in law. Do we really need to weaken our already weak reclamation provisions? Oppose. SB1260 aggregate mine reclamation law; exemption (Allen S) exempts sand and gravel pits that are intermittently used for specific governmental projects from aggregate mine regulatory and reclamation mandates. It is difficult to see why the bill is necessary or why someone doing government projects should get special consideration. There is already a provision in law which allows the mine inspector to grant three subsequent five year extensions before any reclamation has to begin, so someone can delay fixing a problem for 15 years. This additional exemption is unnecessary and provides another loophole for avoiding reclamation and cleaning up a mess. There are plenty of opportunities for delays and exemptions in our mining laws; we should not add another. OPPOSE. SB1288 CAGRD revenue bonding; sustainability policies (Nelson) includes additional bonding provisions for the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District. We have never liked the CAGRD because it promotes urban sprawl and development on virgin desert rather than on farmland. This bill does not appear to make it worse however. NO POSITION. SCM1002 statewide strategy; restoring Arizona's forests (S. Allen) is a memorial that basically recognizes the need for forest restoration and asks the Governor and the Forest Service to validate and institutionalize the consensus agreement reached in the Statewide Strategy and the Analysis of Small-Diameter Wood Supply in Northern Arizona. This is an agreement worked on by the Center for Biological Diversity and Grand Canyon Trust that does include some important side bars, such as limiting activities in important wildlife habitat, roadless areas, etc. MONITOR. HB2330 biodiesel fuel dispensers; labeling (Boone, Mason) requires labeling consistent with federal code. This seems like a common sense thing to do. SUPPORT. HB2396 now: Transportation; Public Private Partnerships (Biggs) includes provisions for allowing public private partnerships and outlines what the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) can include in them. ADOT can include provisions which allow: Private Partners (PP) to collect user fees, tolls, fares or similar charges, payments to be made to the PP, accepting payments of monies and share revenues with the PP, and accepting how the PP will share development costs, among others. This can be used to promote toll roads. The big problem with that is we may see even more unnecessary roads built. The only thing that has stopped the South Mountain Freeway, for example, is lack of funding. OPPOSE. HB2440 drought emergency groundwater transfers (Mason, Ableser, B. Miranda, et al) is an annual bill to allow emergency interbasin groundwater transfers during drought. It is limited, so we do not have an issue with it. Senate Committee on Judiciary at 1:30pm in SHR1 SB1074 election law amendments (Paton) has a strike everything on the same subject. It includes a large number of changes to the election laws, most of which appear to be technical. The substantive changes appear to clean up the process a bit. I see no issues with this. SB1091 elections; special districts; technical correction (Paton) secretary of state; elections; filing has a whole bunch of provisions on elections, again, including provisions relating to signature fraud relative to initiatives. I think it is okay language – why not use the same standards for candidates? It removes huge sections relating to Clean Elections. I am reviewing it further, but expect there are issues with this. SCR1025 publicly financed elections; prohibition (Paton, S. Pierce, S. Allen, et al) refers to the ballot a measure which prohibits the use of taxpayer money to fund any political candidate or campaign for statewide office or the office of member of the legislature. While there are issues with the Clean Elections system, this language is overly broad and would limit future efforts to reduce the influence of money on elections. OPPOSE. Tuesday, June 16 Senate Appropriations Committee at 1:30pm in SHR109 SB1430 water desalination study committee (Melvin, Antenori, Gowan) is a study committee that includes legislators, business interests, and some government representatives to look at “the need for and feasibility of increasing state water supplies through the promotion of water desalination in this state and its potential uses.” They are supposed to look at regulatory impediments. How looking at the fact that it cost a lot of money and uses a lot of electricity? OPPOSE. SB1431 nuclear power study committee (Melvin, Antenori, Quelland) is a study committee made of legislators, utilities, and the Arizona Corporation Commission. It is charged with examining the use of nuclear power and evaluating any impediments to the increased use of nuclear power in this state, including alternative cost recovery mechanisms to encourage the development of nuclear power sources in this state. Again, aren’t the big impediments that it costs a lot, uses a lot of water, and there is nowhere to safely dispose of the waste. OPPOSE. SCR1006 state appropriation limit; reduction (R. Pearce, Gorman, Court, et al) refers to the ballot a measure to prevent the state from appropriating state revenues in excess of seven percent of the total personal income in FY 2010-2011and 6.4 percent in FY 2011-2012. Already, the legislature is finding it impossible to get a budget out. Do we really need this? OPPOSE. SCR1009 voter-protection; temporary budgetary suspension (R. Pearce, Harper, Burges, et al) refers to the ballot a measure that authorizes the Legislature to appropriate or divert funds created by initiative or referendum in any fiscal year in which the respective budget offices of the Governor and the Legislature issue a written finding, confirmed by the State Treasurer, that the state budget for the preceding two calendar quarters had a deficit of at least one percent of the total state General Fund expenditures. This would significantly undermine the voter protection act as I cannot think of a time when the legislature would not make this finding. Some governors might be slightly more circumspect, but that does not change the fact that this is just a big hole in the constitutional protections for measures that the voters enact. OPPOSE. Wednesday, June 17 Senate Education Accountability and Reform Committee at 1:30pm in SHR1 HB2332 schools; energy contracts (Boone) allows school districts to enter into energy performance and renewable energy power purchase contracts and utilize the savings realized from these contracts to purchase energy saving and renewable energy measures. It allows schools to establish an energy and water savings account that consists of a designated pool of capital investment monies to fund energy or water saving projects in school facilities. The bill states that they can use these dollars on projects or measures that save energy or water in a school facility, including technical assistance by a qualified provider or a utility, energy or water service company, as well as repayment of capital investment monies to the qualified provider plus reasonable carrying charges. This bill will help schools save energy, water, and money. SUPPORT. Senate Finance Committee at 1:30pm in SHR3 HB2341 renewable energy production tax credit (Mason) allows for a tax credit for production of renewable energy, but among the qualifying renewable energy sources is biomass, which itself is not a problem, but the definition of biomass in this bill makes it a problem. The definition of biomass includes municipal solid waste, animal waste, and pretty much everything but the kitchen sink. We are particularly concerned about the inclusion of municipal solid waste as incineration of municipal waste produces unacceptable toxic and hazardous air emissions, including dioxins and furans, as well as trace metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury. All of these have negative human health impacts. The public can be exposed via direct inhalation or via the food chain, including via deposition to growing crops. Why would you want to subsidize that? There may be an amendment to remove this provision, which would significantly improve the bill. OPPOSE. HB2373 taxation; biogas facilities (Murphy) provides a sales tax exemption for pipes and valves included in the construction of pipelines used to transport biogas. At a time when we are talking about increasing sales tax and possibly taxing more broadly, creating another exemption is not a good idea. The bill also provides a property valuation reduction for biogas facilities. Biogas facilities would be valued in the same manner as renewable energy equipment. The use of methane digesters to produce energy from animal manure may have a role in addressing environmental problems and meeting energy needs, but the Sierra Club opposes public subsidies to such energy generation at large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) because of the environmental and social damage associated with them: polluting our waters and our air; excessive use of antibiotics and hormones; mistreatment of animals; and harming rural communities and small farms. The bill, as written, would not be limited to the biogas from family farms and would likely be used by these huge industrial operations. OPPOSE. For more information on bills we are tracking, click on Legislative Tracker or paste http://arizona.sierraclub.org/political_action/tracker/ into your browser. Thank you for all you do and all of your great support!
Sandy Bahr |
2009 Legislative Updates Bill Tracker
|
|
Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, 202 E. McDowell Rd, Suite 277, Phoenix, AZ 85004, (602) 253-8633 Sierra Club® and One Earth, One Chance® are registered trademarks of the Sierra Club. |