|
Political Action
|
2000 Environmental Report Card Bill Summaries
SESSION OVERVIEW
Like most of the sessions over the past several years,this legislative
session was not friendly to environmental protection.The legislature
failed to significantly advance the cause of clean air,by refusing to
adopt a bill that would have required cleaner burning dieselfuel --
that bill did not make it out of committee. (The legislature didpass
a bill to allow the use of biodiesel as a stopgap measure, whichwill
help somewhat.) Legislators took Arizona a step backwards in severalareas
related to water quality -- primarily making it more difficult toadvance
clean up of our impaired waters and failing to adequately protectour
ground and surface water from pesticides.
The Arizona Legislature and Governor Hull had a great opportunity to
dosomething real regarding growth management and an even better opportunityto
pass a measure to preserve critical state trust lands, but they blewit
on both counts. In the meantime, a strong and effective proposal, theCitizens'
Growth Management Initiative, continues to pick up support andsignatures
and is on its way to the ballot, and conservation groups arelining up
to oppose the constitutional amendment on state trust lands. Developers
say they want to preserve 3% of our state trust lands. Whatdo they want
to do with the other 97%?
• Read Press Release
• View House and Senate
Report Card Table.
The bills included in this report card are priority bills on which
theSierra Club worked and took a position. Here are the bills on which
thereport card is based:
CITIZEN INITIATIVES
HCR2015 ballot measures apportioned signatures (McGibbon,
Groscost,McGrath, Cooley) requires signatures for ballot measures to
be proportionateto the votes cast in each county rather than on a statewide
basis. Thisis just another attempt to make it more difficult for citizens
to effectchange through the initiative and referendum process. This
passed theHouse, but was held in committee in the Senate. Sierra
Club opposedthis bill.
Third Read in House Yes - 2, No +2
Held in Senate Judiciary Committee
SCR1006 NOW: wildlife conservation management (Bundgaard) requiresthat
any initiative that permits, limits or prohibits the take of wildlifeor
the methods or seasons, must have a two-thirds vote on the ballot.It
restricts citizens' ability to pass laws through the initiative process.Currently,
only a simple majority (50% plus one) is required to pass lawsthat protect
wildlife (or do anything else for that matter). It only takesa majority
vote for the legislature to pass laws regarding wildlife. Whysubject
the people to a higher standard than the legislature? Even constitutionalamendments
require only a majority vote of the public. Why have a higherstandard
for this issue than for changing the constitution? SierraClub opposed
this bill
Third Read in House Yes - 5, No +5
Third Read in Senate Yes - 5, No +5
Referred to ballot.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SB1283 department of environmental quality; continuation (Bowers)extends
the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) until 2005and
includes a number of performance measures in session law. It was amendedin
the House Committee of the Whole to remove the performance measures,to
extend the life of the agency to 2008, and also to include an environmentaljustice
amendment from Representative Loredo. The environmental justiceamendment
said that ADEQ had to consider whether or not permitting a hazardouswaste
facility would have a disparate impact on ethnic minority communities.If
so, the agency could deny the permit. This amendment was stripped offin
a conference committee. The vote included here is the House third readvote
on the bill, which included the Loredo amendment.
Sierra Clubsupported this.
House Third Read with Loredo Amendment Yes +3, No - 3
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE
SB1001 GROWING SMARTER PLUS From the fourth special session(Bowers,
Spitzer, Bee, et al) does not help communities bettermanage growth
and instead gives developers even more leverage withlocal government.
Under this bill, any change in ordinances or regulationsthat are challenged
as a "taking" of property are subject toa new administrative
review process, entirely paid for by the taxpayers.The burden of proving
it was not a taking lies with the city or county.Additionally, the bill
requires that cities and counties obtain writtenconsent of a property
owner or provide an alternative designation of atleast one house per
acre before land can be designated as open space,recreation, conservation,
or agriculture on the general plans. This representsa significant departure
from constitutional traditions.
SB1001 keeps the existing language that developers pay their "fairshare"
for the costs associated with their new developments. Thatmeans the
developers continue to decide what is "fair." Thereis no additional
authority for impact fees and therefore the questionabout school facility
fees remains unresolved. The bill does include languagethat simplifies
how counties impose impact fees -- it makes it similarto the process
followed by cities.
There are some pretty sounding words in this bill, but few of substance.The
bill allows cities, towns, and counties to voluntarily designate areasbeyond
which services would be limited or not provided at public expense--
something they can already do. The measure requires the inclusion ofa
water resources element in the general plan where the municipality hasto
address available water supplies and how future growth will be adequatelyserved.
This provides more information but does not require any changesin land
use planning if the water supply is impacted significantly. Thebill
requires a citizen review and involvement process for rezoning casesand
new development regulations or ordinances; there are notificationrequirements
on the books now. It requires that cities approve a planor policy to
provide annexed territory with "appropriate" levelsof services
within ten years, but there are no requirements on how theydo that or
any demonstrations that must be made, and there are no consequencesif
they do not provide the services within that ten-year period.
The bill requires cities of 10,000 or more persons and those with
between2,500 and 10,000 persons and an average growth rate of 2% over
10 yearsto ratify general plans in an election, but it requires no public
votefor counties' comprehensive plans. Major amendments are not subject
tovoter approval and if a plan is rejected, the old plan stays in place.These
are loopholes and a disincentive for drafting a good general plan.Cities
could still adopt a new plan through a series of major amendmentsand
avoid a public vote. Major amendments to the plans continue to requirea
two-thirds vote of the council under the current law. The bill requirescounties
and cities to present major amendments at a public meeting heldonce
each year.
The bill requires limited disclosure requirements regarding whetherlots
in unincorporated areas have legal and physical access, publiclymaintained
roads, septic systems, and public, private or no well, andwhether they
are in a flood plain. Unfortunately, no one is required toverify the
accuracy of these claims, so people could end up with cloudedtitles
inappropriately. There is limited authority for counties to adoptordinances
relating to land divisions of five or fewer lots with lotsthat are 10
acres or smaller, but they still cannot deny the lot splits.It allows
counties to submit a proposal to voters regarding limited regulationof
lot splits. Unfortunately, it also allows the county boards of supervisors(and
city councils as well) to waive the minimal requirement to submita preliminary
plat and infrastructure requirements for small subdivisionsof ten or
fewer lots. Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read Yes - 6, No +6
Senate Third Read Yes - 6, No +6
Signed by the governor
SCR1001 GROWING SMARTER PLUS From fourth Special session (Bowers,Spitzer,
Bee, et al) is a proposed constitutional amendment to changea number
of provisions relating to state trust land. Currently, the stateland
department is required to maximize profits from state trust lands--
that often means selling them off to developers. This proposal is supposedto
provide a way to preserve some of those state trust lands through theArizona
Conservation Reserve. Unfortunately, it only allows the leastdevelopable
lands -- mountaintops, steep slopes, active floodways, orother land
that is economically undevelopable -- to be added to the ArizonaConservation
Reserve. As if that were not enough, it limits the totalstate trust
land that can be preserved to a maximum of 3% -- that means97% of our
state trust lands will still be open to development. It alsosets up
a very cumbersome multilevel process that will make it extremelydifficult
to have lands put into the conservation reserve, including a2/3 vote
of each house of the legislature.
The proposal allows grazing leases to be continued indefinitely. Thiswould
effectively prohibit conservation groups from bidding on grazingleases,
thus limiting the amount of money that could be generated forthe school
trust in this manner.
It allows for exchange of state trust lands, something Arizona votershave
rejected on three occasions. While this proposal does not allow forprivate
exchanges as it has in the past, it does allow for three-way exchanges,meaning
the state could effectively trade with private developers by includingthe
federal government as the "middle man." We are concernedabout
the abuse of this type of exchange.
Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read Yes - 5, No +5
Senate Third Read Yes - 5, No +5
Referred to the ballot
Flake motion to remove the Allen amendment to place the 3% capin
statute rather than in the Arizona Constitution. The motion passed.
House vote Yes - 3, No +3
SB1021 NOW: Arizona preserve initiative; suitable lands(Freestone,
Cummiskey, Huppenthal) allows 620 acres of state trust landin Ahwatukee
to be reclassified for conservation under the Arizona PreserveInitiative.
This passed overwhelmingly in the Senate (29-0-1) but wasnever heard
in the House. Sierra Club supported this bill.
Senate Third Read Yes +2, No - 2
Held in the House Counties and Municipalities Committee.
SB1126 municipal incorporation (Bundgaard) was amended
in theHouse to give Del Webb and other master planned developers significantleverage
in the incorporation process. The amendment was stripped offin conference
committee, but the bill was defeated nonetheless in theSenate(9-19-2).
Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read (with Del Webb amendment) Yes - 2, No +2
Failed in Senate on Final Read.
SB1430 real estate omnibus (Freestone, Bee, Bennett, Guenther)was
amended in the House to add a provision to weaken the "Actingin
Concert" language in state law and make it more difficult to prosecutethose
who are working together to avoid our subdivision laws and engagein
the "wildcat subdivision" business. The bill passed in theHouse
(35-20-5) but Senator Freestone did not concur or refuse so thiseffectively
killed the bill. Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read yes - 3, no +3
No action by Senate, bill died
HB2559 outdoor advertising violation; enforcement (Hart) flagrantlyundercuts
local authority to regulate billboards and was particularlyaimed at
Tucson. It allows illegal billboards to stay in place, and givesspecial
protections to billboards with code violations that apply to noother
zoning category. Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read Yes - 2, No +2
Senate Third Read Yes - 2, No +2
Signed by the governor.
HB2597 municipal zoning; property value (McGrath, Horne, R.
Burns,et al) states that any action by a city or town that causes the
reductionor restriction in the use or exchange value of real property
without theconsent of the property owner is considered a taking. This
is ridiculousand goes well beyond any court interpretations of a taking.
It would havemade it impossible to do effective community planning and
zoning. Thiswas rejected by the House (29-24-7) and then failed on reconsideration(28-27-5).
Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read (reconsideration) Yes - 4, No +4
Failed in the House on Third Read.
RECYCLING
SB1431 newsprint recycling (Freestone, Bee, et al) lowers
standardsfor recycled content in newspaper print. Over the past decade
newspapershave been forced by statute to increase the amount of recycled
materialsused. This bill allows the current minimum amount of recycled
materials,50 percent, to be reduced to 40 percent. Sierra Club opposed
this bill.
Senate Third Read Yes - 2, N0 +2
House Third Read Yes - 2, N0 +2
SOLAR ENERGY
HB2287 renewable energy tax incentive (Wong, Groscost) providesa
sales tax exemption up to $5000 for the cost of a solar device to theprime
contractor that supplies and installs the solar device. It alsoprovides
an income tax subtraction equal to five percent of the purchaseprice
of an energy efficient home (up to $5,000), excluding commissions,taxes,
interest, points or any other brokerage charges. Sierra Clubsupported
this bill.
House Third Read Yes +2, No - 2
Senate Third Read Yes +2, No - 2
Signed by the governor.
STREAMBEDS
SB1508 nonnavigable streams; disclaimer of title (Bowers, Brown)is
the annual "give away the streambeds bill." It disclaimstitle
to the Big Sandy, Santa Maria, and Virgin Rivers, plus Burro Creekand
all the small and minor watercourses in La Paz, Mohave and Yuma Counties.The
State has a responsibility to ensure that these streambeds are heldin
trust for the public and that a more appropriate means for determiningnavigability
and property ownership is found. This bill and the currentsystem for
determining navigability will result in more litigation andwill not
resolve the question on title to most of this land. Whilethe governor's
office agrees that this is unconstitutional, she allowedthe bill to
become law without her signature instead of vetoing it. SierraClub
opposed this bill.
House Third Read Yes - 3, No +3
Senate Third Read Yes - 3, No +3
Without governor's signature.
WATER QUALITY
HB2179 pesticides; conditional registration (Allen) sets up
aprogram to allow conditional registration of pesticides. Arizonaactually
has a fairly decent pesticide registration program, somethingthat should
be maintained or strengthened, not weakened. This bill allowschemical
companies to contract their pesticides with the state, for athree-year
conditional registration period. If pesticides are registeredin Arizona
they have to submit information such as active ingredients,water solubility,
vapor pressure, soil absorption coefficient, and dissipationstudies.
A deficiency in any of these categories places the pesticideon a groundwater
protection list. HB2179 allows ADEQ and the Departmentof Agriculture
to conditionally register pesticides, and allow chemicalcompanies to
produce registration information over a period of three years.Three
years is enough time to heavily contaminate Arizona’s waterand
soils. Why save chemical companies time and money at the expense ofthe
environment? Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read Yes - 4, No +4
Senate Third Read Yes - 4, No +4
Signed by the governor.
HB2200 water protection fund; appropriation (Daniels, Griffin)appropriates
$3 million to the Arizona water protection fund. While weare not enamored
with all projects funded by this program, it does helpimprove the condition
of Arizona’s riparian areas. The legislature'srefusal to fund this
program is another example of how that body doesnot live up to its commitments.
This program was set up as part of anagreement to allow Scottsdale to
acquire Payson's Central Arizona Projectwater. At the time, many predicted
that the legislature would fund theprogram for a few years, and then
let it go. They were right. Last yearthe legislature did not appropriate
any money for this program in thebudget and this year they failed to
move along this bill. It's businessas usual. Sierra Club supported
this bill.
House Third Read Yes +1, No -1
Never heard in the Senate Rules Committee.
HB 2418 aquifer protection program; predecessor permit (Cooley,
Anderson,et al) requires facilities with a Notice of Disposal or a GroundwaterQuality
Protection Permit to register and pay an annual registration feebased
on the number of gallons of discharge or influent per day. It raisesthe
fee caps for Aquifer Protection Permits. Hopefully, by allowing theADEQ
to increase these fees, they can recover costs and make this programoperate
effectively and efficiently. Sierra Club supported this bill.
House Final Read Yes +2, N0 - 2
Senate Third Read Yes +2, No - 2
Signed by the governor
HB2610 water quality; maximum daily loads (Griffin, McGibbon,
Hart,Flake) requires the ADEQ to jump through additional hoops
in orderto establish total maximum daily loads (TMDL’s) for various
chemicalsin our state’s surface waters. The federal Clean Water
Act requiresthat states establish a list of impaired waters for which
they must doa TMDL analysis. This bill is inconsistent with the Clean
Water Act andthe associated rules and will result in a slower process
to establishthese numbers. It sets up a 15-year schedule for establishing
TMDL's whenmany of Arizona's water bodies have already been awaiting
action for morethan ten years. A slower process and a longer schedule
means more of Arizona'swater will remain polluted for a longer period
of time. Sierra Clubopposed this bill.
House Final Read Yes - 4, No +4
Senate Third Read Yes - 4, No +4
Signed by the governor.
POSTCARDS
HJR2001 denouncing new monuments (Griffin, Groscost, Brimhall,et
al) denounces the establishment of two new national monumentsin
Arizona. While it does not change any law, it does send a terriblemessage
-- to Arizonans and to the rest of the country. It is unfortunatethat
despite the fact that 78% of Arizonans support designation of theGrand
Canyon-Parashant National Monument and 75% support the Agua Fria/PerryMesa
National Monument, the governor, the legislature, and most of ourcongressional
delegation oppose them. Secretary Babbitt had many publicmeetings, especially
on the Grand Canyon-Parashant Monument and therewas plenty of opportunity
for public comment, so this attempt to use lackof public input as an
excuse is nonsense. Also, Congress could have actedat any time to protect
these areas, but didn’t. The memorial alsoasks Congress to take
action to prevent further designation of monuments.Sierra Club opposed
this bill.
House Third Read Yes - 1, No +1
Senate Third Read Yes - 1, No +1
Signed by the governor.
HCM2005 pesticide tolerances (Gleason) asks the Congress to
take immediateaction to enact H.R. 1592 and S. 1464 relating to the
establishment ofpesticide tolerances under the 1996 Food Quality Protection
Act. Thesebills would result in weakening protections for the public
relative topesticides and would restrict what information is available.
This failedin the Senate (14-16). Sierra Club opposed this bill.
House Third Read Yes -1, No +1
Senate Third Read Yes -1, No +1
Failed on Third Read in Senate.
HCM2006 block grant; Endangered Species Act (Flake, Groscost,
Guenther)makes inaccurate comments about critical habitat designation
for endangeredspecies -- it says the listing of threatened and endangered
species andthe resulting designation of critical habitats often adversely
impactmultiple use of public and private lands, including broad-based
wildlife-relatedrecreational opportunities. This is pretty much verbatim
what the Gameand Fish Commission passed last year and really is just
an anti EndangeredSpecies Act manifesto. The bill failed in the Senate
(12-16-2). SierraClub opposed this bill.
House Third Read Yes - 1, No +1
Senate Third Read Yes - 1, No +1
Failed on the Third Read in the Senate.
OTHER BILLS
Not included in this list are some bills relating to voluntarycompliance
and incentives, and also a couple of bills relating to theunderground
storage tank program. SB1454 voluntary remediation programincluded
some provisions to improve the land use restriction requirementsregarding
sites that are not cleaned up to residential standards and alsoincluded
some community involvement. This means that people might actuallyknow
a site is still contaminated before they buy land. That is a goodthing.
The Sierra Club has always advocated for cleaning up all sitesto residential
standards and for cleaning up water to aquifer water qualitystandards
(drinking water), but unfortunately the legislature decidedseveral years
ago to give up on this goal of more protective standards.The bill establishes
one more program under which it will be acceptableto clean up to less
than aquifer water quality standards and less thanresidential standards
for soil. There is a commitment to come back andwork on notification
requirements for those who may decide to drill awell in an area that
contains contaminated water. The Sierra Club workedto improve this bill
but did not support or oppose it.
Also not included in the scorecard is SB1321 voluntary environmentalperformance.
It sets up a program to allow for leniency on penaltiesif a company
establishes an environmental management system that helpsthem follow
the law. The Sierra Club did not oppose the bill but did askfor improvements
such as allowing the director of the Arizona Departmentof Environmental
Quality to terminate any civil penalty waivers if theaction presents
an "imminent and substantial threat to public health,welfare and
the environment." The language in the bill refers to"serious
actual harm to human health and the environment." Thisbill passed
with a conditional enactment. No money, no law.
We did not include SB1452 environment; liability; storage tanksand
SB1461 proportionate liability; environment. Both contain moreunnecessary
tinkering with the Underground Storage Tank program in responseto another
non-existent problem. While the bills as passed are less distastefulthan
they were originally, we do not think the liability changes are necessaryand
they could result in the public picking up even more of the tab forthese
contaminated sites. Remember, a gas tax pays for 90% of the cleanup
to most sites and in many instances covers 100%. The Sierra Club opposedthese
bills.
Finally, we did not include any bills on which we did not take some
action.For example, we monitored the biodeisel bill and an alternative
fuelsbill, but did not work on them significantly and therefore did
not deem it appropriate to include them in this report.
- - -
Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, 202 E.
McDowell Rd, Suite 277, Phoenix, AZ 85004, (602) 253-8633
|
