|
"I think that this can easily be subtracted from the proposal without doing any harm to what is a terrible piece of work," he said. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said that under the budget agreement, a panel made up the state attorney general, the secretary of resources and the secretary of environmental protection would make a final decision on the project. Steinberg said the state had run out of options and had to make a choice between a project that would generate about $100 million annually for the next 14 years, or to make deeper welfare and social service cuts. "And, you know, that's a choice," he said. Michael Endicott, resource sustainability advocate for Sierra Club California, said environmental standards and statutes should not be rolled back as part of the budget process. "Eventually we'll be rebuilding and we'll be operating again, and those standards should be implemented again
-- that people worked long and hard to put in place in order to avoid problems," he said. Endicott and Garamendi both said a better alternative would be an oil severance tax that other major producing states have. Their estimates of such a tax ranged from $800 million to $1 billion a year. "California is the one large state that doesn't charge a fee for the extraction of oil," Endicott said. Attorney Linda Krop, who represents the three Santa Barbara environmental groups, said they continue to support the agreement they negotiated with Plains but she had not yet consulted with them on the possibility of it being put before a new panel rather than State Lands.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor