facebook twitter you tube



What's Good for the Goose

If environmental rules can be used to halt construction of anything good for farming, why not use the same rules to halt construction

Jun 02, 2012


Families Protecting The Valley Newsletter


» SJRiver$
» Tunnel
Donate to Families Protected the Valley
Visit Our Web Site

Visit Our Web Site

Board of Directors

Denis Prosperi
Chester Andrew
Bob Smittcamp
Russ Waymire
John "Dusty" Giacone
Joe Marchini
Mark Watte
Kole Upton
Piedad Ayala
Tom Barcellos
Jim Walls

What's Good For The Goose

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. At least that's what we thought. For years, farmers have had environmental rules thrown right in their faces, not to mention their wallets. So when high-speed rail threatens to roll over their farmland, they naturally decided to use the same rules to fight back. If environmental rules can be used to halt construction of anything good for farming, why not use the same rules to halt construction of a damaging project?

The answer is simple, of course. The people who want to build high-speed rail are the same people who control the rules. So, the rules change when they want to build their pet project. And, what's good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. C'est la vie. Goosed again.

High-speed rail project may get legal help

Proposal would insulate it against majority of environmental lawsuits.

By David Siders - The Sacramento Bee

Except in the most serious cases of potential environmental harm, the proposed legislation would allow construction to proceed while the California High-Speed Rail Authority fixes any environmental flaws identified by a judge.

The proposal is likely to be considered by the Legislature this month or next.

Environmentalists expected to be briefed by administration officials on the plan next week.

Dan Richard, chairman of the rail authority board, said Friday that the proposal consists of "pretty small, pretty technical" changes. It would allow a judge to block construction in major cases if opponents showed, for example, that an endangered species was threatened with extinction, he said.

Environmentalists are generally supportive of high-speed rail for the promise of mass transit. But the California Environmental Quality Act is the state's signature environmental protection, and environmentalists are almost certain to oppose the administration's proposal.

"I don't imagine that we're going to see something next week that will make us want to embrace these exemptions that they're going to be proposing," said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California.

Among other things, environmentalists have objected to the administration's plan to run high-speed rail over Pacheco Pass, where they fear its effect on wetlands.

Phillips said the rail authority's concern about environmental challenges slowing the project is misplaced.

"Environmental review is not going to slow this project," she said. "What's going to slow this project is ineptitude by the high-speed rail authority, and that's what we have seen, at least in the last four years."

In addition to raising standards for blocking construction, the proposal would make it easier for the administration to modify parts of the project without redoing its overall environmental review. For example, the rail authority could move forward with its recently adopted and widely praised plan to use existing infrastructure in urban areas without exposing itself to new litigation.

Stuart Flashman, an Oakland lawyer who has sued the California High-Speed Rail Authority on behalf of cities in the Bay Area, said it "makes it a real long shot" for an opponent to block potentially damaging construction in court.

"If the Legislature passes this," he said, "both the Legislature and the governor ought to be ashamed of themselves." The state has previously protected major projects from environmental challenges.

Brown, a Democrat, signed legislation last year accelerating judicial review of environmental challenges to a proposed football stadium in Los Angeles. At the time, he said the project was necessary to "get people working" in California.

Proponents of the high-speed rail project have made the same argument about high-speed rail.

The project is a major part of Brown's agenda, and the proposal to protect it from litigation could be significant to his ability to start construction in the Central Valley by next year.

On Friday, the city of Chowchilla became the latest litigant to file an environmental lawsuit against the project.

Brown is seeking legislative approval this summer to use $2.6 billion in state rail bond funds and $3.3 billion in federal funds to start construction of the rail line.

Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said that he expects a vote on that appropriation to come after the state budget is considered this month but before the Legislature recesses for summer.

Steinberg said he doesn't anticipate a major floor debate about the California Environmental Quality Act, but he said he wasn't aware of what Brown planned to propose.

"We'll listen to anything that the administration has to say about it," Steinberg said, "but it hasn't really come up directly."

If you enjoy our newsletter please send it to friends. If you're a member of an organization please feel free to send it to everyone on your list. If someone sent this to you and you'd like your own free subscription, sign up here. If you'd like to respond just click 'reply' or send to john@familiesprotectingthevalley.com



Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.