Frequently Asked Questions
What will be the main effect of the Enviro Right Amendment when it is enacted?
It will function primarily as a thumb on the scale in favor of the environment. The right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment will not be absolute; courts will balance it against other rights and entitlements. But it will provide a much-needed reminder that the environment must be taken into account in legal situations where it is not considered now.
Could I use it to sue my neighbor for cutting down a tree on his property?
No, even though trees are generally good for the environment, the Enviro Right Amendment would not be enforceable against private parties, due to the way it’s worded. It’s enforceable only against government entities like cities, counties, and state agencies.
Could it be used to stop housing projects?
No. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) already requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental impacts of projects they approve. Most housing projects are subject to CEQA, which requires an elaborate Environmental Impact Report for most larger projects.
What is the effect of the public-trust language in the Amendment?
Under the public-trust doctrine the State holds certain resources in trust for the public, and must protect them from harm. The proposed Amendment adds the atmosphere and climate to the list of natural resources that are protected by this doctrine. This would provide another level of protection.
What does it mean that the environmental rights provided by the Amendment would be self-executing?
It means that no further legislation is required in order for the rights to be enforceable. For example, the right to free speech provided by the First Amendment to the US Constitution is self-executing. A government agency that violates a person’s right to free speech can be sued by that person based just on the legal authority provided by the First Amendment.
How have environmental-right amendments in other states and countries been used to protect the environment?
In Montana, the court held that the legislature violated the environmental-right amendment by omitting the analysis of a project’s greenhouse-gas emissions from analysis under its environmental-impact-assessment law (Montana’s equivalent of CEQA).
In Hawaii, the environmental right amendment provided legal authority supporting the plaintiffs’ right to a life-sustaining climate, which helped to facilitate a settlement under which the State agreed to change its transportation system to align with the goal of becoming net-zero by 2045.
In Pennsylvania, the amendment was used to strike down a statute prohibiting local governments from regulating oil and gas production. The result was a great reduction in fracking in the State.
In Mexico the Supreme Court held that the legislature’s elimination of a Climate Change Fund violated the constitutional right to a healthy environment and ordered the fund to be restored.
In Brazil the Federal Supreme Court held that regulations revoking various environmental restrictions violated the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment.
In Ecuador an appeals court held that the government’s authorization of gas flaring violated the plaintiffs’ right to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
How would the Environmental Right Amendment relate to US federal law?
As part of the Bill of Rights in the California Constitution, the Amendment would be part of California State law, not federal law. It would be an effective way for the State to resist the dismantling of environmental law by the Trump administration. We can strengthen environmental protections in the State to push back.