Legislative Updates

Archives

Legislative Update #9, March 9, 2001

SIERRA CLUB - Grand Canyon Chapter
812 North Third Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85006
(602) 253-8633  Fax (602) 258-6533
grandcanyon@qwest.net

To: Conservation Friends
From: Sandy Bahr, Conservation Outreach Director, Sierra Club
Date: March 9, 2001
Re: Legislative Update #9

Hi all! The legislature has not wrapped up its activities for the week and a number of agendas are not yet posted. This afternoon the Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture & Environment Committee will continue its meeting from Thursday. We have heard that deals were cut on the state trust land bills, which means they will probably get voted out of Committee. Senator Bowers, in his ongoing jihad against conservation, is wheeling and dealing to get his state trust land ballot measures on the ballot. So what does that do to efforts to work out a measure that will address conservation and education? It blows it out of the water. What does it mean for winning passage of a meaningful conservation measure? It means it is a lot less likely, as various interests become divided and the confusion on the ballot increases. If these bills move forward, it is a big win for Rusty who is content with the system the way it is.

This week please call House Members again and ask them to oppose HB2364 northeastern Arizona environmental projects; appropriations (Flake, Brown, Allen, et al.). It appropriates $350,000 to the state land department for distribution to a private nonprofit -- the Environmental Economic Communities Organization (EECO) -- formed by Greenlee, Graham, Gila, Navajo and Apache counties for planning and implementing of "environmental programs." This is an inappropriate use of the public's dollars. In the past, our tax dollars have funded the incorporation costs and fundraising costs of this private non-profit, supported opposition to a ballot measure campaign, etc. If this entity was really doing public education on Proposition 202, then why didn't the proponents of Proposition 202 ever hear from it? Dr. Martin Moore was campaign chair of "Arizonans Against Proposition 202," and is also the director of EECO. Are we to believe that he developed purely educational materials for Prop 202? EECO promotes anti-environmental propaganda -- surely it can find private funding for that. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE IT.

And yes, please ask your House members to also oppose HB2556 initiative and referendum; pamphlet; signatures (McClure, Blendu, Cooley, et al.). It is an attempt to interfere with the public's ability to refer measures to the ballot. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare an official title for ballot measures to be appended to the petition before signatures can be collected. The Legislative Council will review the applicants' proposed law and make recommendations to the public. 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. Most measures would not be referred 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. This entity could not even handle the ballot measure analysis. 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. It will make it difficult to find a campaign chair or treasurer if that individual is going to be held liable for invalid signatures. This punitive bill will hurt grassroots efforts enormously. WE OPPOSE IT.

Also ask House members to support HB2431 environment; chemical; electronic reporting (Landrum, Weason, Avelar, et al.). It requires businesses that have reporting requirements under the Uniform Fire Code and have enough hazardous chemicals on site, to file and update their data electronically.  This way, if there is a fire, an accident, etc. the firefighters will have the most up-to-date information about a facility.  They can better protect themselves and the community. WE SUPPORT IT.

Please call senators again and ask them to oppose SB1355 community facilities districts (Bennett, Bee, Rios). It removes restrictions for counties to establish Community Facilities Districts. It allows for the creation of a special taxing district for financing urban infrastructure at tax-exempt rates. Can you say SPRAWL? This means more leapfrog development like Anthem and is a nice subsidy for Del Webb, Suncor, Don Diamond and all of our friends in the master planned community business. WE OPPOSE IT.

Here is an update on a few bills:

SB1330 S/E ballot analysis (Mitchell) establishes a Citizen Ballot Measure Committee to write the impartial ballot analysis for ballot measures. Appointments to the commission would be made by the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, leaders of the minority party in the House and Senate, with each appointing two members. Lobbyists and officers and members from political committees would not qualify. This is a move in the right direction. This may have trouble on the Floor. WE SUPPORT IT.

SB1530 confidentiality agreements; restrictions (Bundgaard, Cummiskey, Jarret, et al.) limits confidentiality in settlements when the action was for injury, wrongful death, or financial loss caused by a defective product, environmental hazard, or financial fraud. It requires many of the documents to be made public. This is a great bill. It is definitely in the public interest to have these settlements be public. The most recent case of abuse in this area is the Firestone tire case where the company knew about the problems back in 1996 and settled several lawsuits, but unfortunately the details were kept confidential until last year. As a result, many more people died or were injured including the daughter of a woman who testified in the Judiciary Committee. The business interests lined up against it lock step -- the list of opponents was almost as extensive as the list of those who opposed Proposition 202. You know it has to be a good bill when that happens. WE SUPPORT THIS.

SB1292 land conservation fund; development rights (Cirillo) was killed in Rules because it violated the Voter Protection Act.

HB2144 structural pests; integrated pest management (May) allows the buyer of property to request a report listing all termite treatments reported in the previous three years from the Structural Pest Control Commission (SPCC) for the property. It also requires the SPCC to prepare guidelines for an integrated pest management program. It passed out of the House 37-21-2. WE SUPPORT IT.

HCR2012 initiative and referendum; process (McClure, Blendu, Cooley, et al.) referred to the ballot a constitutional amendment that would have required 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 was just another attempt to make it more difficult to put something on the ballot. This was defeated in the House Judiciary Committee 4-4-1-1 with Representatives Brotherton, Camarot, Foster, and Sedillo voting no. Please call and thank them.

HCR2015 Court surcharges; transportation; traffic safety (May) attacked Clean Elections by eliminating the primary funding source. This bill was killed in the House Ways and Means Committee by a vote of 1-8-1. Voting against the bill were Representatives Camarot, Cheuvront, Cooley, Giffords, Huffman, Kraft, Landrum, and Leff. Please call and thank them.

HB2426 environment; NPDES program (Huffman, Blendu, Graf, Landrum, et. al.) provides the foundation for ADEQ to pursue primacy for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for discharges to surface waters. We do not believe the legislature will provide adequate funding for the program and the bill specifically prohibits fees for the program. We object to provisions that prohibit ADEQ from doing anything more stringent than the Clean Water Act. Really, what is the point if the Department cannot do this? 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 -- in the bill everything is discretionary -- and about how ADEQ will address endangered species issues. We think the agency should be required to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. WE OPPOSE IT.

Here's what's up in the legislature this week.

Monday March 12^th

House Committee on Transportation @ 3:00 p.m. in HHR2

Tuesday March 13^th

House Committee on Counties and Municipalities at 9:30 a.m. in HHR5

Wednesday March 14^th

House Committee on Energy, Utilities & Technology @ 9:00 a.m. in HHR5

This committee will have presentations on Rural Energy, Conservation Measures, and Energy Management. It is probably worth attending just to see what kind of propaganda the utilities are pushing.

Thanks for all your help! Sorry this is so long. For more information on legislation go to the web page http://www.azleg.state.az.us. If you're outside the Phoenix area, you can call your legislator's office toll free at 1-800-352-8404. In the Phoenix area call (602) 542-3559 (Senate) or (602) 542-4221 (House). Correspondence goes to 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix, AZ 85007-2890. To email legislators use first initial + 7 letters of surname@azleg.state.az.us.

Legislative Updates page

Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, 202 E. McDowell Rd, Suite 277, Phoenix, AZ 85004, (602) 253-8633