|
|
Legislative Updates 2009Sierra Club 2009 Legislative Update #23 (final) “Never open the door to a lesser evil, for other and greater ones invariably slink in after it.” July 6, 2009 Here is the final legislative update for 2009. After this I will do the report card and send that out, probably next week. As most of you probably know, Governor Brewer vetoed the budget reconciliation bills, which means the provisions on limiting impact fees, the moratorium on building codes, and the rule-making moratorium are all gone. She also vetoed the environmental budget reconciliation bills that diverted State Parks Heritage Fund dollars for fire suppression and she used the line item veto to eliminate some lump sum reductions to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. That is all good news. Please contact her and thank her for vetoing the bills that contained these terrible provisions, but also ask her to make sure they do not creep back into any negotiated budget package. The Legislature is back in Special Session to address the budget. Today, they will address the emergency education budget issues and then over the next few weeks negotiate the rest of it. It is my understanding that the negotiations will include Republican and Democratic leaders. Now there is a novel concept. Nonetheless, they should stick to the budget and not include all kinds of ancillary policy matters that do not belong in the budget. You can contact Governor Brewer by calling her at (602) 542-4331 or toll free at 1-(800) 253-0883. You can email her by clicking on Governor Brewer and then filling in the online form. You can also paste this website into your browser http://azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp Remind her that it would be a good idea to veto SB1225 NOW: dust control; best management practices (S. Pierce). The Governor has until next Monday, July 13 to sign them, veto them, or let the bills become law without her signature. SB1225 does several things which will contribute to poor air quality. It adds five people to the agricultural best management practices committee – someone representing a cattle feedlot, a dairy, a poultry operation and a swine operation, plus one county person; 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. Overall the bill is intended to undercut county authority to regulate these facilities and is specifically targeted at undercutting efforts by Pinal County to regulate these polluting facilities. There are several bills included below that we would like to see her veto as well as a few we would like to see her sign. Here are some bill updates: SB1077 technical correction; state trust lands (Nelson) had a strike everything amendment on state trust land reform. It passed out of committee, but did not go any further so died for the session. There are still people trying to push this forward for a special session or a future legislative session, but we see no real opportunities in the Legislature and think it must be addressed in a citizen initiative. This is the companion bill to SCR1030. It identifies specific lands to be conserved, but leaves out key lands, including lands near Walnut Canyon, Arroyo Grande, Oracle, and the Rincon Valley lands, among others. SB1077 also restricts the use of impact fees for acquiring lands, which makes no sense. There is nothing that has greater impact on the lands, the habitat they provide, and the wildlife, than development. Developers should be assessed impact fees for conserving these areas. The definition of “conservation” in this bill is the same as in SCR1030 and is very weak – it merely means restricting the use of the land against “development.” If you then read the definition of development, it does not include a lot of things that can harm the conservation values of the land. The following are not considered development: utility lines and associated facilities, canals, roadways, etc. OPPOSE.
SB1118 NOW: air quality; begin actual construction (S. Allen) was never heard in the House so died for the session. This bill 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” relative to these permits 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. This bill is contrary to the Clean Air Act and to improving air quality. OPPOSE. SB1147 greenhouse emissions; regulations; fuel economy (S. Allen, Gould, R. Pearce, et al) was assigned to the House Environment Committee, but was never heard, so it died for the session. This is good news as the Environmental Protection Agency finally granted California its waiver, so California and other states including Arizona can move forward with implementing their Clean Car Standards. The bill required 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. It would have limited actions on some key issues including the Clean Car Standards and would have had a negative impact on air quality. OPPOSE. SB1157 department of environmental quality; continuation (Nelson, C. Allen, Huppenthal, et al) passed both Houses and awaits the Governor’s signature. It continues the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for five years. It is kind of amazing that they got a clean sunset bill out of this Legislature. Perhaps it is because they have plans to neuter the agency in other ways. SUPPORT. SB1183 recreational corridor districts; termination date (Burns) passed both Houses and was transmitted to the Governor. She should veto this – it is one of many sand and gravel bills that went through this session. It allows people in these areas where there are sand and gravel operations to continue to form new taxing districts for these recreational corridors for another five years (at least it is no longer indefinitely). These districts are effectively channelization programs for the sand and gravel operations and are a way of shifting reclamation responsibilities away from the companies. OPPOSE. SB1259 aggregate mine reclamation; initiation; extension (Allen S) passed the Senate 17-11-2 and the House 36-14-10, and is on the Governor’s desk. It would be nice if she vetoed this too. It includes one more factor for allowing reclamation of sand and gravel operations 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) passed the Senate 17-11-2 and the House 34-15-11 and is on the Governor’s desk. Again, a veto here would be appropriate and warranted. It 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. SB1269 rezoning; majority vote (S. Pierce, Tobin, S. Allen, et al) died in the Senate as it never came to the Floor for a Third Read. It allows a change in a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of a county board of supervisors rather than the current requirement, which allows property owners within a zoning area to file a protest to a proposed rezoning, and if twenty percent of the property owners file protests, an affirmative vote of three fourths of all members of the board of supervisors is required. The three-fourths vote is only triggered by controversial measures. That is right and appropriate. There was a Garcia Floor amendment which applies this change only to three-member boards of supervisors and then sets up a different process for five-member boards. OPPOSE. SB1401 NOW: Arizona energy park authority (Verschoor) never received a Third Read in the House, so it died for the session. It allows the Arizona Power Authority Commission to establish “Sustainable Energy Parks” and provide loan programs for building new “sustainable” energy. Sustainable energy is defined to include nuclear power as well as some renewable energy resources. This proposal has so many flaws, it is difficult to know where to start, but the first is that it is ridiculous to think that nuclear power can or should be built in such a manner; this is not a viable mechanism for constructing these facilities. Where will the money come from for constructing these facilities in these “Energy Parks?” Ratepayers? If so, they are treading into the Arizona Corporation Commission’s area of responsibility as outlined in the Arizona Constitution. In fact the bill really muddies the water relative to the role of the Arizona Corporation Commission. This bill could establish yet another set of rules and significantly expand the role of the Arizona Power Authority. OPPOSE. SB1403 renewable, high-wage industries incentives (Leff, Mason, Reagan, et al) passed 16-12-2 in the Senate and 39-12-9 in the House and awaits action by the Governor. Please encourage her to sign this. 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. SUPPORT. SCR1006 state appropriation limit; reduction (R. Pearce, Gorman, Court, et al) is one of the bad bills they actually defeated on the Floor. It failed in the Senate 14-15-1. It 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 develop a decent budget. This is the last thing we need. OPPOSE. SCR1009 voter-protection; temporary budgetary suspension (R. Pearce, Harper, Burges, et al) died in the House as it was not brought to the floor. It 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 we 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. SCR1030 technical correction; bond elections (Nelson) had a strike everything amendment on state trust land reform that died for the session. It is just one of many examples of why we should be looking to a citizen initiative to address this issue. The striker is a proposed constitutional amendment that allows for “conservation” of some state trust lands. There are several problems with the measure including that it allows for land exchanges, which seldom are in the best interest of the public, let alone the trust, and it allows for destructive activities to continue on lands that are in theory conserved. For example, it requires that existing leases be renewed on lands that are conveyed for conservation and that the lease be renewed for up to twenty-five years. That makes no sense whatsoever. They get to continue leases on land that is no longer in the trust. The way it reads, it applies to all leases – mining, agricultural, grazing, etc. OPPOSE. HB2141 homeowners’ associations; sun screens (Ch. Campbell, Meyer, Sinema, et al) never came to the floor of the House, so it is dead for the session. It prohibits homeowners’ associations and condo associations from preventing the installation or use of solar screens or shade structures that are intended to act as an energy saving device. This will make it easier for homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient. SUPPORT. HB2167 S/E RRD- Transportation omnibus (Biggs) never had a Third Read in the Senate, so it is dead. It has numerous provisions including allowing a city or town to construct, operate or finance the construction of toll roads within the corporate limits of the city or town. We object to this as we see toll roads as a means of constructing controversial projects that the public would not otherwise finance. OPPOSE. HB2258 consumer fireworks; novelties, sales (Biggs, Ableser, Quelland) passed both Houses and awaits action by the Governor. She should veto it. It makes sparklers and other related fireworks legal in Arizona. Don’t we have enough fire hazards? The fire chiefs and Forest Service have consistently opposed this. We have consistently joined them in doing so. OPPOSE. HB2278 NOW: tires; abandoned mines (Jones) was never heard in the Senate and died for the session. It allows waste tires to be used to fill abandoned mines. This is a recycled bad idea from last year that was rejected. Last year’s bill did allow the filling of these abandoned mines with inert waste materials, however. There are several environmental concerns with filling abandoned mines with tires. First of all, tires are flammable and create a fire hazard. Tire fires produce a lot of smoke and toxic chemicals that are produced when rubber compounds break down via combustion. Tires present a threat to water quality. Many abandoned mines were abandoned because they filled with water. Tires leach hazardous substances into the soil and water as well, especially subsequent to burning. Abandoned mines also provide habitat for bats and other wildlife. Before filling them, we should do an assessment. If bats are utilizing the mine, then a bat-friendly gate should be installed rather than filling with materials. OPPOSE. HB2329 solar energy; permit fees (Boone, Mason) is dead for the session. It establishes a maximum fee that can be charged for various solar systems including solar hot water ($150) and solar photo voltaic ($375), plus it includes an inflation factor for the fee and provisions for charging more if it is a more complicated system. The fee cap sunsets in 2013. Right now it is difficult for those who are installing solar panels or solar hot water to know what the fee will be from city to city – it can vary from nothing to $1000. This bill will would have brought some consistency to that and removed one more barrier for distributed solar energy generation. SUPPORT. HB2332 schools; energy contracts (Boone) passed both Houses and awaits action by the Governor. She should sign it. It 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 savings account that consists of a designated pool of capital investment monies to fund energy saving projects in school facilities. The bill states that they can use these dollars on projects or measures that save energy 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. HB2332 was amended on the Senate Floor to include the provisions for energy saving appliance standards for pool pumps and portable electric spas. SUPPORT. HB2336 NOW: county renewable energy incentive districts (Mason) passed both Houses of the Legislature and awaits action by the Governor. She should sign this bill as well. There was an attempt to revive HB2335 (note, that bill is dead), a measure which will help more with distributed generation of renewable, but it was defeated in Committee of the Whole. HB2336 authorizes county boards of supervisors to designate renewable energy incentive districts in any unincorporated area of the counties, provided the areas consist of vacant or underused parcels, or other property the board deems suitable for renewable energy equipment, and are the appropriate size for the construction and operation of renewable energy equipment. It must also be compatible with the surrounding uses. SUPPORT. HB2341 renewable energy production tax credit (Mason) passed both Houses of the Legislature and awaits action by the Governor. It allows for a tax credit for production of renewable energy and among the qualifying renewable energy sources is biomass. The definition of biomass in this bill was amended to remove municipal solid waste. We were 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. NEUTRAL. HB2401 administrative rules oversight committee (Williams, Barnes, Burns, et al) passed both Houses and awaits action by the Governor. She should veto it. This bill reestablishes the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee (AROC), a committee that has oversight on rules and consists of 10 legislators and a representative from the governor’s office. This committee was an ineffective mechanism for addressing concerns about rules when it existed previously and merely adds more bureaucracy to an already cumbersome process. There were good reasons that Governor Hull vetoed a bill to keep the AROC around – no one has really missed it since. Governor Napolitano vetoed an identical bill last session. The entity is duplicative as there are many mechanisms for resolving issues with the rules currently. Rules are reviewed by assistant attorneys general for compliance with the laws and must go through the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council. OPPOSE. HB2424 illegal dumping; penalties (McGuire, Barnes, M. Garcia, et al) never came to the Floor of the Senate, so it died for the session. It increases the penalty for illegal dumping of trash to a class 1 misdemeanor and a $1,800 fine, among other things. SUPPORT. HCM2006 state land; natural resources (Jones, Konopnicki: Barto, et al) passed both Houses and was transmitted to the Secretary of State to be sent to the Congressional Delegation. It is a memorial that asks Congress to “. . . refrain from passing any new legislation to withdraw any lands in Arizona from mining, and refrain from enacting any wilderness designations in Arizona without the unanimous support of Arizona’s congressional delegation.” It asks, “That the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service not limit the public’s access to public lands under their jurisdiction for mining, grazing, recreation or other uses.” We do not need more trashed public lands, polluted ground and surface water, and a big mess for the public to clean up. Concerns about surface- and ground-water contamination of Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado River have been expressed by former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano; the Los Angeles Water District; the Southern Nevada Water Authority; the Arizona Game and Fish Department; the Navajo Nation, Hopi, Havasupai, Hualapai and Kaibab Paiute tribes; and Coconino County. While we recognize it is only a “postcard” to congress and does not affect the law, it is a truly bad message to send – to Congress or anyone. The memorial is disrespectful of the many local and tribal entities that have been working to protect the Grand Canyon area from uranium mining. OPPOSE. HCR2030 NOW: Arizona's water protection (Stevens, Gowan, Antenori, et al) passed both Houses and was transmitted to the Secretary of State and will be transmitted to our Congressional Delegation. It is ironically titled as it advocates no protection for most of our rivers and streams and specifically objects to Clean Water Act protections for ephemeral and intermittent streams. HCR2030 encourages members of Congress to oppose the “expansion of the federal Point Source Discharge Program” as current legislation proposes and “oppose any legislation that would result in the expansion of federal jurisdiction and emasculation of the states’ jurisdiction.” The legislation they mention is called the Clean Water Restoration Act and it hardly “emasculates” state jurisdiction, but it does ensure that waters have the minimal protections afforded by the Clean Water Act, rather than weak, if any, protections at the state level. The Clean Water Restoration Act restores the traditional scope of protection intended by Congress. Americans need these safeguards to achieve the goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. HCR2030 is merely a “postcard” to Congress, but it again sends a bad message. OPPOSE. Thank you for all you do and all of your great support throughout this legislative session! For more information on bills we are tracking, click on Legislative Tracker or paste http://arizona.sierraclub.org/political_action/tracker/ into your browser. If you have a question on a bill and don’t see it listed, feel free to contact me. 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. |