SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — California lawmakers want to establish the state's position on environmental health, taking a first step Monday in their proactive approach to ensure processes for the state's environmental management remains secure, regardless of any federal changes.
“In California, we’re a national leader on addressing climate change and injustice,” Assemblymember Isaac Bryan said Monday when addressing the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. “We’re a global leader in addressing climate change and injustice.”
The Los Angeles Democrat is propositioning a constitutional amendment that would enshrine into law the Californian's right to clean air, water and the environment.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 16, authored by Bryan, passed Monday out of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and into his chamber’s Appropriations Committee. It must pass both houses by at least two-thirds and then secure a majority vote at the polls.
Bryan, also the committee's chair, noted California has implemented an air resource board and air quality management districts. It also has safe and affordable drinking water — privileges he said are at risk of federal interference.
“We have not codified these protections in our state constitution, which makes them vulnerable,” Bryan said.
According to Bryan, California lags behind states like Montana and New York in including clean environmental rights in its constitution. Without those listed rights, the state remains unprotected from changes in federal administrations.
“If our state is to continue making equitable environmental progress, it is imperative that we join the growing list of states who have moved to enshrine environmental rights in their constitutions,” Bryan said in a bill analysis.
Reverend Louis Chase, with Holman United Methodist Church in Los Angeles, advocated for the amendment. He said his church is on the frontline of racial justice work. His community and others sit in the middle of four freeways, and are subjected to the problems they bring.
Solange Gould, with Human Impact Partners, also supported the legislation and said it would provide a legal framework that’s needed.
The amendment was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce.
Brady Van Engelen, with the state chamber, said the intention of the amendment was laudable. However, it could potentially be a job killer.
Van Engelen also pointed out that California already is a leader in climate and water quality issues. He questioned what additional protections would add that the state already doesn’t have.
It also would lay a foundation for possible legal challenges, he said. Van Engelen said the people who would benefit the most are white NIMBYs — meaning “Not In My Back Yard” — who would manipulate the law to their own ends.
Bryan said he found that idea offensive, as Black and brown communities have been living in subpar environmental conditions for decades.
“We know what it means to not push forward,” Bryan said. “That’s not what folks sent us here to do.”
Assemblymember Joe Patterson, a Rocklin Republican, elicited laughter when he said that he figured his legislation would pass given that Bryan is the committee chair.
Saying he liked the big ideas Bryan presented, Patterson added that he worried that without the Legislature stating its intent, a judge could stymie the amendment. Patterson suggested that Bryan narrow the amendment’s focus.
Bryan argued that, even if the amendment is snared in litigation, it highlights the accountability that people should have over their government — that they have the right to clean air, water and environment. Additionally, he argued, it serves as a reminder to lawmakers that people should have those rights.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
California certifies March 5 primary election results April 12, 2024 -
