Legislative Update #7, February 23, 2001

HB2364 northeastern Arizona environmental projects; appropriations (Flake, Brown, Allen, et al) is pork for Rep. Flake and Senator Brown. It appropriates $350,000 to the state land department for distribution to Greenlee, Graham, Gila, Navajo and Apache counties for planning and implementing of "environmental programs" impacting economic development in those counties. This is really a blank check for mischief and is a way to hammer the Endangered Species Act and explore ways to cut down more trees. WE OPPOSE IT.

SB1122 sales tax exemption; pallets; containers (Hamilton) exempts the sale of reusable or returnable containers from sales tax. The reusable pallets are returned to a pooling company that rents the pallets to farmers and manufacturers. The idea is that it will help cut solid waste and reduce the use of lumber by encouraging the reuse of these pallets. WE SUPPORT THIS.

HB2144 structural pests; integrated pest management (May) requires a person selling property to disclose the number of times it has been treated for pests in the previous three years, the types of chemicals, the target pest, etc. It also sets up a process for the structural pesticide commission to establish guidelines for integrated pest management. The Huffman amendment -- added in Environment Committee -- significantly weakens the bill and says that the information regarding the pest treatment would only be available upon request. There are significant health issues related to many of these pesticides and they can be especially detrimental to those who already have chemical sensitivities. This is a basic right to know issue. WE SUPPORT THIS BILL WITHOUT THE HUFFMAN AMENDMENT.

HB 2523 state land appraisal standards (Binder, O'Halleran, Camarot, et al.) requires that all appraisals for state lands comply with the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice. This sounds like a good idea to me.

HB2611 municipal general plan; amendment (Flake) defines a "major amendment" to a general plan. It means an increase of more than fifty per cent in density or intensity of a land use element. This is ridiculous. An increase of 25% in density is major, plus what in the world does an increase of intensity by 50% mean? WE OPPOSE THIS.

HB2426 environment; NPDES program (Huffman, Blendu, Graf, Landrum, et. al.) may or may not be on this agenda. This bill provides the foundation for ADEQ to pursue primacy for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for discharges to surface waters. Right now the Environmental Protection Agency administers these. There was a strike everything amendment in the Environment committee, but we still have the same concerns. We are not confident that the legislature will provide adequate funding for the program and ADEQ has already given up the idea of charging fees for permits (the cities helped eliminate this). We object to language in the bill that prohibits ADEQ from doing anything more stringent than the Clean Water Act. Really, what is the point if the Department cannot do this? Also, in order to meet the goals of the CWA, the agency will have to adopt more stringent standards over time. We are also concerned about the level of enforcement and about how ADEQ will address endangered species issues. WE OPPOSE IT.

HB2537 regulatory reform (Allen, May) requires state agencies to develop a list of people who can help businesses through the approval process of the agency. How about some help for the rest of us? It also requires that the agencies make available to the public their regulatory agenda for the year. Considering all of the nasty things they have done over the past few years regarding regulatory reform, this does not appear to be all that bad.

HB2109 leaf blowers; area A (Weason, Allen, Binder, et al.) bans the use of gasoline and diesel leafblowers in area A beginning January 1, 2002. Leaf blowers generate a significant amount of pollution in the urban areas. This will either die or be amended significantly. It may place some restrictions on leaf blowers around schools, daycare centers, medical facilities, etc. WE SUPPORT THIS BILL.

HB2449 air quality; carb diesel (Allen) will have a strike everything regarding an air quality fee for diesels.

HB2538 Brown cloud study; air quality (Allen) provides an not yet identified amount of funding for the Voluntary Vehicle Repair and Retrofit Program, expands area A to include Surprise and Buckeye, requires implementation of roadside testing of diesel trucks in area A, and creates an advisory committee regarding an emission cap and trading program for emissions in area A, among other items. We support the bill, but have expressed a few concerns. We are very concerned about an emissions trading program if it does not include adequate enforcement and public accountability and we are concerned about not including area B (Tucson) in more of these programs. WE SUPPORT THIS.

HB2577 emissions testing; heavy diesel vehicles (Allen, Weiers, Blendu, et. al.) sets up a program for testing out of state diesel vehicles for emissions, that means a snap idle smoke opacity test. If they fail they are issued a notice of violation, they have to repair the vehicle and pay a $150 fine; if they fail again they get a citation, they must repair, and a pay $300 fine; and the next time the fine is $800. The program would be administered by ADOT instead of ADEQ -- that seems a bit odd. WE SUPPORT THIS.

HCR2012 initiative and referendum; process (McClure, Blendu, Cooley, et al.) refers to the ballot a constitutional amendment that would require signatures for initiatives, referenda, and constitutional amendments to come from five different counties and to be apportioned among the five or more counties on the basis of the votes cast within each county in the previous gubernatorial election. It is just another attempt to make it more difficult to put something on the ballot. It is already tough enough -- unless you have a few million bucks. WE OPPOSE IT.

HB2556 initiative and referendum; pamphlet; signatures (McClure, Blendu, Cooley, et al.) is another attempt to interfere with the public's ability to refer measures to the ballot. It says that the Secretary of State shall prepare an official title for the measures and that it has to be appended to the petition before signatures can be collected. It says the Legislative Council will review the applicants proposed law and make recommendations to the public. It says that if a county recorder finds that more than one-third of the signatures are invalid then the political committee, the chair, and the treasurer are liable for the costs of examining and verifying the signatures, not to exceed 50 cents per signature, and it says the Legislative Council will review each measure and make suggested changes regarding unclear, inconsistent provisions or conflicts with existing law. The recommendations are advisory, but of course will be made available to the public. I am not sure where to start regarding this bill, but the bottom line is these measures would not be referred by the public in the first place if the legislature was willing to pass them. The Legislative Council is biased against ballot measures and has and will do everything it can to sink them. Finally, there are some counties that have higher invalid rates for signatures not because the signatures are really bad, but because people do not have specific physical addresses. This punitive bill will hurt grassroots efforts enormously. THIS SHOULD BE DUMPED!

HB2264 Arizona preserve initiative; nominated land (Huppenthal, Robson, Burton Cahill, et al.) allows the land commissioner to nominate and classify trust land as suitable for conservation purposes in an area within a development plan if appropriate conservation purposes are incorporated within the plan. This measure is intended to help the folks in Ahwatukee have 620 acres there classified for conservation. WE SUPPORT THIS.

As usual the agenda is still not posted, so this is my best guess.

SB1425 water qualities penalties remediation (Huffman and Guenther) allows, at the direction of the Director of ADEQ, a party who is assessed civil penalties for a violation of certain water quality laws to retain or have returned those civil penalties for the purpose of taking required remedial action. The whole idea of penalties is to deter future acts of negligence. If they can just clean up and not be out extra money, are we losing that deterrent? WE HAVE SIGNFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS.

SB1465 underground storage tank funding; commission (Bowers, Guenther, Richardson, Allen) provides for an actuarial study to analyze the UST assurance account and requiring the ADEQ and the UST Policy Commission to evaluate the study and make recommendations for paying assurance account claims to the Legislature. We have no problem with this 

SB1466 service stations; underground storage program (Bowers; Allen, Guenther, Richardson) redefines "underground storage tank" to include USTs located in secondary containment vault structures installed on or after July 1, 2001. Excludes from the definition of "hazardous substance" under the state water quality laws, petroleum. An amendment will be offered to exempt dry wells for gas stations from obtaining aquifer protection permits (APPs). The APP program is intended to prevent contamination of our drinking water and this bill weakens that protection. WE OPPOSE IT.

SB1501 bottle and can deposits (Richardson, Nichols, Cardamone, Bee) requires a fee of three cents for the sale of each beverage container of twenty-four ounces or less and a fee of six cents for the sale of each beverage container of more than twenty-four ounces. We like it but would like to see a higher deposit so it really does make a difference regarding what people just toss. WE SUPPORT THIS.

SCR1004 state land exchanges; school lands (Bowers, Hamilton, Bundgaard, et al.) allows open-ended land exchanges and focuses on preservation of urban farm land. This could result in opening more acres of public land for development, especially if the state trades rural land for urban lands. The rural lands usually have a lower value, which means more acres for development. Because it allows private land exchanges, it also is likely to result in great deals for the developers and a sharp stick in the eye to the public. WE OPPOSE THIS.

SCR1005 trust lands proceeds and income (Bowers, Flake, et al) refers to the ballot a measure that would have 10% of the income from state trust lands go directly to the beneficiary. The Arizona School Board Association has some concerns about this and its impact on the permanent fund.