By Gwendolyn Craig
A proposed amendment to the state constitution to guarantee clean air and water is making its way through the New York State Legislature, though not all Adirondack lawmakers support it.
Several Republican lawmakers suggested the change could open the floodgates to lawsuits. Democratic lawmakers said other states that have passed similar language did not see any uptick in litigation.
The proposed bill would add to the state bill of rights, giving citizens the “right to clean air and water and a healthful environment.” On Tuesday the bill passed the state Senate and the Assembly’s Environmental Conservation Committee. It will now go to the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee.
The full Assembly will have to vote on the amendment for the constitutional change. Then it would appear before voters on a November ballot. Lawmakers representing the Adirondacks raised issues with the quest.
Sen. Dan Stec, R-Queensbury, and Sen. Jim Tedisco, R,C-Glenville, voted against the bill on Tuesday and Assemblyman Matthew Simpson, R-Horicon, talked about his concerns with the change. Simpson, however, did not vote against the amendment during an Environmental Conservation Committee meeting on Tuesday.
Stec said he was not against the goal of having clean air and water, but after noting that the bill did not include the definition of “clean,” he said the Legislature needs “to be very cautious and careful with our language.”
“In the face of ambiguity you will have distrust, lawsuits and costs,” Stec said. “We’re throwing something out there that we have not well defined.”
In an emailed statement to the Adirondack Explorer, Tedisco said the amendment “sounds nice” and he supports the concepts, “especially in our precious Adirondack Park, but this bill is just a wish list with no real environmental protections and definitions. That’s problematic from an implementation and enforcement standpoint as it will potentially create a false sense of security for New Yorkers as the state will not be able to guarantee this without clear definitions of what these terms mean so all parties impacted can understand their roles and responsibilities.”
Other Republican colleagues worried that the amendment would encourage more lawsuits, too, something that worried Simpson. During Tuesday’s committee meeting, Simpson said the Adirondacks have numerous antiquated wastewater treatment systems “affecting the water quality of people downstream.”
“I’m just concerned about this language, creating an opportunity for somebody to really make a case that, ‘I’m entitled to clean water and I’m affected by a faulty municipal system’ in a community that’s trying to deal with this and there isn’t any answers,” Simpson said. He pointed to the crippling costs local governments could face. “The financial impact of this, the state needs to recognize.”
Simpson added that Lake George has a number of septic systems that need upgrades. Some Adirondack local governments are under state consent orders to upgrade their wastewater treatment systems, but have a small taxpayer base to lean on for that funding.
Assemblyman Steve Englebright, D-Setauket, is chair of the committee. Englebright said the constitutional amendment could coincide with the passage of a renewed environmental bond act. The Legislature had passed a $3 billion environmental bond act last year, but Cuomo pulled it from a public referendum, citing the $15 billion budget deficit and the coronavirus pandemic. But Englebright believes the bond act could be renewed this year.
The bond act, he continued, could help fund wastewater treatment plant upgrades.
“The ability to put financing together for communities that have a demographic profile such as yours, that’s a challenge,” Englebright said to Simpson. “I can only tell you I am sensitive to it. I think that this (constitutional amendment) will help.”
The change to the constitution, other Democratic lawmakers said, would be less about paving the way for private lawsuits against industry and more about guiding public policy.
The nonprofit Adirondack Mountain Club earned a mention during the Senate’s session as an important sponsor to the bill. Michael Barrett, the club’s executive director, thanked the Senate for taking the lead in the bill’s passage.
“The Green Amendment ensures that environmental impacts will be considered early in the process of government decision-making when prevention of pollution, degradation, and harm is most possible,” Barrett said in an email.
Other groups that were part of lobbying for the bill included Environmental Advocates NY, Delaware Riverkeeper and Green Amendments for the Generations.
Sen. Robert Jackson, D, WF-Manhattan, lauded the environmental justice the addition would make.
“We will finally have safeguards for government to consider the environment and relationship to Mother Earth in the decision-making process,” Jackson said on the Senate floor. “This should not be a political agenda on anyone’s part. It should be for the betterment of all the people of New York State.”
Correction: This story has been updated to correct the name Environmental Advocates NY.
Maybe Adirondacks legislators should worry about the consequences of NOT having clean air and water, in a region where the private sector economy is almost entirely based on outdoor tourism.
Define: clean
My automobile puts out exhaust. I am now depriving everyone other New Yorker of clean air. My 1000 cow cattle farm produces tons of methane a year from the animals, again – air pollution. My septic tank has a leach field where the liquids flow into. Eventually that hits the water table. I am now depriving any neighbors using a well of cleanest water possible. Your municipal government uses salt and sand in the winter on its roads. That runoff goes into streams, rivers, and lakes. You can now sue the state and town for an unlimited amount of money because that water and soil is now contaminated.
See the potential problems now?
This Green Amendment is no different than a politician promising ‘I’m going to do good things’ but not providing any definition of what good they are going to do. I’d love to see concrete ideas instead of setting this up for New Yorkers to vote on a ‘Concept’. This will allow groups to sue on everything that goes on in this state because there is no guidelines to what it means…….which means the courts will decide what it means, not the people of the state. That is a bad idea.
I keep trying to get my arms around exactly what this provision would do? I know that it must do something since some groups are pushing so hard for it. All I can see is that the provision will create another cause of action for lawyers to challenge decisions that have been made consistent with SEQRA.
Please give me one example of where this provision would have made a difference and I could change my mind.
It sounds like a bunch of people dont want to be seen as liable for polluting and well that’s the point. You are liable and you should be concerned. You can miss me on the excuses, we need a green new deal NOW!
A serious scary piece of legislation. Very unclear definitions of dirty and clean. Leaves decisions open to unelected Albany bureaucrats and their Environmental lobbyists buddies. Far to much control to Albany.