'Right' To Clean Air And Water Tested In California

CALIFORNIA — Should the right to clean air and water and a healthy environment be enshrined in the California Constitution?

No, says the state's top pro-business organization.

In an April 3 letter addressed to its membership and to the state Assembly Natural Resources Committee, the California Chamber of Commerce opposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 16, dubbing it a "job killer."

Otherwise known as ACA-16 or the "green amendment," the proposal was introduced early this year by Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles). It calls for adding a single sentence to the state constitution's Declaration of Rights: "The people shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment."

The amendment would add to existing constitutional rights already enshrined, including the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty; acquire, possess, and protect property; and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy.

If ACA-16 passes out of California's assembly and senate with a two-thirds majority, it would be added to the November ballot for the voters to decide. For now, the propsal is sitting in committee.

The California Chamber is trying to stop the proposal from moving forward.

"While well intentioned, this measure would have far reaching and unintended negative consequences that would impair government operations, stunt development for new housing, infrastructure, and clean energy projects and destabilize the California economy," the letter reads.

The opposition language has been adopted by local Chambers of Commerce statewide.

The letter argues that "enshrining into the State’s Constitution a general right to clean air and clean water is unnecessary" because California has strong environmental laws already on the books.

The California Environmental Quality Act, the Porter-Cologne Act, and Proposition 65 are cited as examples.

The proposed amendment would also open the door to lawsuits that would slow or halt development projects throughout the state, the California Chamber letter claims.

The letter goes on to read that ACA-16 "could be economically devastating" for California. Compliance costs would "skyrocket" for business and government, leading to higher taxes, decreased investment in state infrastructure and housing, and "significant job losses."

California is by no means the first to propose such an amendment. Montana, New York and Pennsylvania have amended their state constitutions with language similar to the California proposal. Montana's and Pennsylvania's were amended decades ago, while New York's was approved by voters in 2021.

Bryan has called the CCC's opposition "ridiculous," and he told abc10 this week that California is "about four decades" behind other states when it comes to protecting the right to a healthy environment.

"In California, we like to promote ourselves as climate champions [and] as climate leaders. But it's strange that 40 million people in our state don't have those rights," Bryan said.

In a piece published this week by the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board, the news outlet wrote that "there’s a reason that powerful business interests have come out in opposition. Enshrining environmental rights in California’s constitution would give citizens a new tool to hold the government accountable for failing to act in the interest of environmental health, protection and justice. That could, in turn, force the state to crack down on polluters.

"Californians should have the chance to not only send a message about how much they value a healthy environment, but to assert that something as fundamental to life as clean air and clean water isn’t just an aspiration or an ideal, but a right."