Should clean air and water be a right of every Californian?

A controversial proposal to amend California’s Constitution to ensure environmental rights for all citizens has been put on hold for at least a year after it failed to win approval before a set deadline.

ACA 16Also known as the Green Amendment, it sought to add a line to the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights stating that all people “shall have the right to clean air and water and a healthful atmosphere.”

That one sentence seems straightforward enough, but as of earlier this week, the proposal had not yet passed the state Assembly or moved to the state Senate. Both houses must pass the proposal by June 27 to get it on voter ballots this fall.

Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles), the bill’s author, said he decided to hold it until next year so he could strengthen its language and improve its chances of success. That means if it passes, it won’t actually go into effect until 2026.

“We simply do not have enough time in this election cycle to craft comprehensive and inspired amendment language appropriate for California,” Bryan said. Post on social media site X“We will continue to work and build for the climate justice our communities need.”

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, environment, health and science.

According to Bryan, who also chairs the Natural Resources Committee, the amendment has received widespread support, including the backing of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister).

The Los Angeles Times editorial board in April The proposal was supportedHe said that “in California, of all places, citizens should have the opportunity to consider whether a healthy environment is a right equal to life, liberty, security, the pursuit of happiness and privacy, all of which are enshrined in the Constitution.”

But it also faced opposition. The California Chamber of Commerce called it “Job Killer” and said it would have far-reaching negative consequences, hampering housing development, infrastructure and clean energy projects, among other concerns.

The group said compliance costs could have an economic impact on businesses, communities and local governments. The group also feared the amendment could be used to Stopping any development project That release air emissions, wastewater, or other environmental emissions, including major transportation projects such as high-speed rail,

Chamber of Commerce spokesman Dennis Davis said, “While we are pleased the measure will not move forward this year, proponents can be sure there will be strong opposition if it is introduced again in the future.”

In a phone conversation, Brian said he had decided to put the offer on hold for a year because he was “running out of time.”

“we have a we need to pass the budget“We have a lot to cover, and the more conversations I have with legal scholars and front-line communities and other interested stakeholders, the more complex it gets,” he said. “And so I think we have a much deeper understanding now than we did when we started this process, and I think we have some options for how we might want to approach it next time around. Ultimately, I just wish I had started this process a year ago.”

Bryan said they are studying similar amendments from other states that have already added such clauses to their constitutions to learn from their strengths and weaknesses. He said it’s “important for California to create the proper balance of power, knowing that it will have a huge impact.”

In fact, California would not be the first state to affirm these environmental rights. Pennsylvania and Montana included similar language in their constitutions in 1971 and 1972, respectively. New York added the right to a “healthy environment” to its document in 2021 with overwhelming support from voters.

According to one report, more than a dozen states, including Arizona, Texas, Hawaii and Florida, are currently considering their own green amendments, and additional proposals are expected in at least five other states. Recent Sierra Club reports,

California Environmental Voters, an advocacy group that supports California’s proposal, said it understands the decision to postpone the amendment given the time constraints. But Mike Young, the group’s senior political and organizing director, said the amendment’s failure to be introduced also shows the need for more action and leadership.

“We’re in a situation where we need leadership on these issues, we need to continue to push forward, we need to really do more, because we see that we’ve fallen behind,” he said. “This is a really critical time. That’s why we really need leadership not only from members like Assemblyman Bryan, but we need greater leadership from the Legislature to really prioritize these things and get them done. Because without that, it really could get lost.”

Last month, the group held a virtual town hall meeting for young climate activists eager to see the resolution passed. About 60 attendees gathered at the online Zoom meeting, during which Bryan said he also sees the amendment as a means to hold powerful institutions accountable.

For example, Pennsylvania residents have already used their Green Amendment as a litigation tool, including 2017 lawsuit against the Trump administration For delays in protecting residents’ health from ozone and smog.

Last year, a group of young environmental activists in Montana won a landmark case in which a judge ruled that state agencies their constitutional rights were being violated Creating a clean and healthy environment by allowing the development of fossil fuels.

“This is practical — this is what people deserve,” Bryan told the group. “We’re 40 years behind other states.”

In addition, he said, California has already taken other steps to protect itself from changes in federal interests. These efforts include a 2017 law that requires California to “Condemning Trump-era immigration policies labeled “sanctuary states”,

In 2022, California will also Codified abortion and other reproductive rights The state incorporated it into its constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Bryan said by phone that his proposal to ensure similar protections for clean air and water is not meant to reflect pessimism about the direction of federal environmental policy, but rather a “better safe than sorry” stance. He said delaying the amendment for another year would not lessen its impact.

“If the federal government moves forward in a non-environmentally friendly or unsustainable way, 2026 is still in the middle of that,” he said. “If that happens, I think there’s just as much weight to getting it done then, if not more.”