Save CEQA!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Megan Mullin: "Email newsletter available on Statewide Water Issue"
• Previous message: Megan Mullin: "Legislative Update -- Governor's Vetoes"

************************************************************
WILSON ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPTS TO GUT CEQA:
Public Comments Needed to Save California's Most Important
Environmental Law!
************************************************************

In a shocking display of capitulation to special interests, Governor Wilson
is attempting to leave a weakened California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as his legacy. The state's most important environmental law,
CEQA forces public agencies to consider and document the environmental
effects of public and private sector actions approved or permitted by the
agencies. The Wilson proposals would attack CEQA in four ways: (1) by
increasing the number of projects that would be exempt from CEQA, (2)
by making it more difficult to analyze the "cumulative environmental
impacts" of a proposed project, (3) by restricting when "feasible
alternatives" must be considered, and (4) by limiting public participation in
the project review process.

Your action is needed now in order to protect CEQA, the statute that has
done more for public participation in environmental protection than any
other single law.

At a general level, CEQA requires an environmental impact review (EIR)
process to be conducted for any project that could have a potentially
significant effect on the environment, and it mandates that public agencies
deny approval of any project with significant adverse effects when feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures are available. In the twenty-seven years
since CEQA's enactment, it has become the primary means by which the
public can influence environmental decision-making.

The Secretary of the Resources Agency, appointed by the Governor, is
authorized to develop guidelines that implement and interpret CEQA's
provisions. The Wilson Administration has repeatedly attempted to use
this rulemaking process to undermine the power and intent of CEQA.
With a huge arsenal of CEQA-weakening proposals, the Governor is at it
again this year, trying to push through guideline revisions that will
substantially weaken CEQA and harm the environment.

Wilson's proposed revisions to the CEQA guidelines expand the number of
projects which are totally exempt from CEQA, even though they may have
significant environmental impacts. Because these projects would be listed
as exempt, they would proceed without any public notice. Consequently,
the burden would be shifted to the public to discover the projects and
demonstrate their impacts. The lack of public notice would allow many
projects to escape environmental review and public comment, regardless of
their environmental effects. Projects that would be exempted under these
guidelines include:

** projects to maintain or stabilize berms, dikes or surface impoundments;
** approval of controversial natural community conservation plans
(NCCPs), which the Sierra Club has generally rejected because they allow
development instead of protecting endangered species;
** in-fill projects in urban areas;
** projects to clean up contaminated soils through onsite treatment of
soils and sludges, through construction of "interim" groundwater treatment
systems, and through "interim" measures to contain or stabilize hazardous
waste (there is no time limit given for what constitutes an "interim"
project);
** leasing and permitting existing facilities; and
** shoreline oil refining operations and marine terminals when leases of
public lands are renewed, because the proposed guidelines define the
baseline environment to include ongoing, unmitigated significant impacts.

Another key Wilson strategy is to prevent disclosure and mitigation of the
cumulative environmental effects of projects. If an EIR does not have to
disclose these impacts, then the impacts do not have to be mitigated. The
proposed guidelines would diminish consideration of cumulative impacts in
several ways:

** If the the project impact is "lessened," then the EIR would need only to
explain this and cumulative impacts would not need to be discussed any
further or mitigated, even if it were feasible to do so.
** "Reasonably anticipated future projects" would be redefined so that
they would not include all projects known to the agency and not even all
projects included in a general plan.
** If a project complies with requirements in a regional plan (such as an
air quality plan), then its cumulative impacts would not need to be
considered or mitigated.
** If a cumulative impact was adequately "discussed" in a prior EIR, then
it would not need to be analyzed in the project EIR, even if the impact
remained unmitigated.

The proposed guidelines also severely weaken the requirements to consider
feasible alternatives to a project by allowing the project proponent define
the scope of alternatives. Alternatives would not have to be considered
that do not achieve project objectives, which are defined by the project
proponent.

Finally, the Wilson Administration proposes adding new policies which
would guide implementation of CEQA. The new policies all reference
CEQA cases which are critical of public participation and effective review.
Quotations from cases which are supportive of citizen involvement and
effective mitigation are ignored.

In short, there are three clear problems with the proposed CEQA
guidelines. They put the environment at serious risk, they prevent
disclosure and public participation in a significant number of projects, and
they are an end-run around the legislative process. Many of the proposals
have been included in bills which were rejected by the California
Legislature. Adopting these proposals through revisions to the CEQA
guidelines is an abuse of the executive regulatory process, especially since
they clearly contradict the intent of the original statute.

STATUS: Written comments on the proposed changes to the CEQA
guidelines must be submitted to the Resources Agency by Monday,
December 8, 1997. Public hearings will be held in Los Angeles on
December 4 and in Sacramento on December 8.

ACTION NEEDED: By law, the Resources Agency must respond to
every comment it receives on the proposed guideline changes. Our best
chance to prevent these guidelines from passing is to delay action until
Governor Wilson is out of office. In order to force this delay, WE MUST
FLOOD THE RESOURCES AGENCY WITH COMMENTS. Hopefully
we will be able to create the need for a second public comment period,
which will delay action until late next year.

Please write the Resources Agency and state your strong opposition to the
proposed changes to the guidelines that implement the California
Environmental Quality Act. Some points to highlight in your letter:

** The proposed guideline changes clearly defy the original intent of
CEQA by putting the environment at serious risk. In exempting projects
that could have significant environmental impacts and in preventing
disclosure of cumulative impacts, the proposed guidelines would allow
public agencies to avoid consideration of the environmental impacts of their
decisions.

** The proposed changes would significantly limit public participation in
the environmental impact assessment of projects by shifting the burden of
identifying potentially damaging projects to the public. This clearly violates
the public's right to know.

** The proposed changes abuse the regulatory process by using it as an
end-run around the deliberative legislative process, which has specifically
rejected many of the proposals now being considered.

Send your comments BY MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1997 to:

Maureen F. Gorsen
General Counsel
The Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814
maureen@resources.ca.gov

If you wish to testify at one of the public hearings, or if you would like a
sample letter, please contact Megan Mullin at
<megan.mullin@sierraclub.org> or (916) 557-1100 x102.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To get off the CALIF-ALERTS list, send email to LISTSERV@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CALIF-ALERTS

• Next message: Megan Mullin: "Email newsletter available on Statewide Water Issue"
• Previous message: Megan Mullin: "Legislative Update -- Governor's Vetoes"

Back to Sierra Club California Alerts page

Back to Sierra Club home page.

Sierra Club, 85 Second St., Second Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-3441, USA. Telephone (415) 977-5500 (voice), (415) 977-5799 (FAX). Sierra Club® is a registered trademark of the Sierra Club.