Environment

Attorney General Bonta Secures Settlement Regarding Unlawful Construction of Trump Border Wall

July 17, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – Leading a coalition of 18 states, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement of lawsuits over the unlawful construction of border wall projects that occurred during the Trump Administration. California-led coalitions of states sued the Trump Administration on two occasions — in 2019 and 2020 — alleging that it was illegally diverting taxpayer funds authorized for other purposes to construct a border wall in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. As part of today’s settlement, the Biden Administration agrees to cease construction of border barriers with the challenged funds and take several important measures to remediate the environmental harm caused by the construction, including providing funding for the protection of thousands of acres of crucial sensitive habitat in California. The Biden Administration also confirms in the settlement agreement that it has restored funding for military construction projects in the plaintiff states. The Sierra Club and Southern Borders Communities Coalition, nonprofit organizations that also sued the Trump Administration, are settling their claims for these actions as well. 

“The Trump Border Wall is officially a relic of the past, which is where it belongs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With environmental mitigation projects coming online to protect our sensitive ecosystem along the U.S.-Mexico border and the confirmation of over $427 million in funding restored for military construction projects, today’s settlement ushers in a new beginning. I am grateful to the Biden Administration for working with us in good faith and making this announcement possible.” 

The California Attorney General’s Office secured two District Court judgments declaring President Donald J. Trump’s diversion of funds for border wall construction unlawful and enjoining further construction of the barriers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed both judgments. On a 5-4 vote, in 2019 the United States Supreme Court allowed the construction to proceed while the litigation was pending without ruling on the legality of the transfers or construction. Upon taking office, President Joe Biden issued a Proclamation that ceased all construction of the border wall proposed by the Trump Administration. In response, the Supreme Court sent the cases back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Among the settlement terms are the following:

  • The Department of Homeland Security will provide $25 million to California that may be used for one of two purposes: to help fund an environmental nonprofit’s purchase of the Otay Village 14 property in San Diego County, an environmentally sensitive set of parcels totaling over 1,200 acres that are located near the U.S.-Mexico border and valued at approximately $60 million (with the environmental non-profit securing the remaining $35 million of the purchase price from other sources), or if the environmental nonprofit cannot secure the additional funds needed for the Otay Village 14 property acquisition, to fund Phase 3 environmental mitigation projects, including consideration of land acquisitions for conservation purposes in the Proctor Valley/Lower Otay Lakes area of San Diego County.
  • The Department of Homeland Security will install small and large wildlife passages in the border barrier system for several endangered species. If exigent circumstances arise or border security operations demand it, the Department of Homeland Security may install gates to enable those passages to be closed.
  • The Department of Homeland Security will provide $1.1 million to fund programs that monitor several federally endangered species, including the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Sonoran Desert Pronghorn, Mexican Gray Wolf, ocelot, and jaguar. 
  • The parties confirm that $427,296,000 in funding for military construction projects in the plaintiff states of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Wisconsin has been restored. Exact amounts per state can be found on page 7 of the settlement agreement.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in announcing today’s settlement are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

A copy of the settlement agreement can be found here.

Attorney General Bonta Submits Comment Letter Regarding EPA's Proposed Greenhouse Gas Standards for Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles

July 6, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND — Leading a coalition of 26 States and Cities, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced today that he has submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) and criteria pollutant standards for light- and medium-duty highway vehicles model years 2027 through 2032. While EPA’s proposal would lead to measurable progress — a 56 percent reduction in GHG emissions levels from the model year 2026 levels for light-duty vehicles, and a 44 percent reduction in GHG emissions levels from the model year 2026 levels for medium-duty vehicles — Attorney General Bonta urges EPA to move forward with more stringent GHG and criteria pollutant standards, which technological advancements make feasible nationwide. Light- and medium-duty vehicles include passenger cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickup trucks, and vans.  

“Under the Biden Administration, EPA is once again taking seriously our moral and legal obligation to address climate change and air pollution,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Precisely for that reason, our coalition is asking EPA to adopt standards more stringent than its proposed standards. This July 4th was the warmest day ever recorded worldwide — it should serve as a wake-up call. We can and we must meet the moment.” 

The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States, with light-duty vehicles being the largest contributor within that sector. In addition, light- and medium-duty vehicles are a significant source of non-GHG pollutants that detrimentally affect air quality. Both the impacts of climate change and poor air quality disproportionately harm environmental justice communities. 

In their letter, the attorneys general and cities:

  • Emphasize that strong emissions standards are necessary to protect the environment and public health. From extreme heat to wildfires to drought, they note that we are already experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change, which will continue to mount and compound with rising concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.
  • Detail that the technologies necessary to reduce GHGs and criteria pollutants from new motor vehicles already exist and are widely in use in the market today.
  • Explain that standards more stringent than EPA’s proposed standards would comport with its statutory mandate in Section 202(a). Under Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, EPA “shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles . . . , which in [its] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin; the People of the State of Michigan; the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania; and the Cities of Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, and Oakland.
 
A copy of the comment letter is available here. On June 19, 2023, Attorney General Bonta submitted a similar comment letter to EPA regarding its proposed GHG standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta, CARB Chair Randolph Lead Coalition in Defense of California’s Truck Emissions Regulations

June 28, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Liane Randolph today led a coalition of states and cities in moving to intervene in lawsuits challenging the decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize CARB regulations that would speed the adoption of zero-emission trucks. The regulations would help California tackle its significant climate and air quality challenges by reducing greenhouse gases, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and other emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Trucking and petroleum industry groups — but not vehicle or engine manufacturers — are among the petitioners seeking judicial review of EPA’s action to grant CARB’s request for waivers of preemption, which allowed these CARB regulations to move forward. California, along with a coalition of other states and cities, is moving to intervene to defend its ability to enforce the laws.
 
“Tackling truck pollution is one of the single most important actions California is taking to clean our air and protect the health of millions,” said Governor Newsom. “Truck pollution is hurting communities across our state – especially underserved communities who are on the front lines of the climate crisis. We did not back down against radical efforts to undo our zero emission vehicle rules and we won’t back down from defending these commonsense, life-saving clean truck policies.”
 
“It’s no secret that California has air quality challenges — that’s precisely why we are seeking court permission to defend EPA’s waiver for our critical truck emission regulations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Premature deaths, childhood asthma, and cardiovascular problems are among some of the adverse health impacts experienced by those who live in areas with high truck activity, many of whom are lower income and people of color. These communities are also often hit first and worst by climate change. This unfortunate reality demands action from us all.”
 
“Communities across our state have long endured some of the most polluted air in the nation, a public health and climate crisis that requires urgency and action,” said CARB Chair Randolph. “We are taking an important step to defend our right to protect the health of Californians with emission standards that for decades have spurred necessary innovations in clean vehicle technology and put us on a path toward zero-emissions transportation.”
 
The truck emission regulations at issue include the following:

  • Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which aims to accelerate the widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector by requiring manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty trucks to sell increasing numbers of zero-emission vehicles.
  • Zero Emission Airport Shuttle regulation, which would accelerate the adoption of zero-emission vehicle technology in airport shuttles at the 13 largest California airports, including Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Diego International Airport (SAN), and Sacramento International Airport (SMF). 
  • Heavy-Duty Emissions Warranty regulation, which, among other things, would lengthen the period during which manufacturers must guarantee the emissions performance of their on-road diesel engines.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, California may request a waiver of preemption from EPA to enforce emission standards for new motor vehicles. EPA must grant a waiver request unless the record supports one of three, limited findings for denial. Most other states have a choice of adopting California’s standards to apply in their jurisdictions or relying instead on federal standards.
 
Joining California in filing the motion to intervene are the States of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington; the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania; the District of Columbia; and the Cities of Los Angeles and New York.
 
A copy of the motion to intervene can be found here.

Attorney General Bonta Renews Call for Bureau of Land Management to Consider the Significant Social and Environmental Impacts of Federal Coal Leasing Program

June 16, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a multistate coalition in submitting a comment letter to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), urging it to consider the full social and environmental costs of the federal coal leasing program. An agency within the U.S. Department of Interior, BLM manages coal resources on public lands across 11 states and leases the right to produce those coal resources to private entities. That coal is transported for both domestic and foreign consumption, with millions of tons of coal being transported each year through California. At present, due to litigation brought by the California Attorney General’s office — along with the attorneys general of Washington, New York, and New Mexico, as well as various environmental organizations — a moratorium is in place on new coal leases. On May 1, 2023, BLM asked for public comment that will help inform its forthcoming environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) about whether, and to what extent, to resume the program and issue new leases. Today’s comment letter responds to that request.
 
“The last comprehensive environmental review of the federal coal leasing program was completed in 1979, over four decades ago. Renewed consideration of the actual costs and benefits of the program is long overdue,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In 1979, the impacts of climate change were not fully understood. Today, we know that the increase in wildfires, heat waves, and other natural disasters is not a random occurrence, but the direct result of climate change. In addition, millions of tons of coal are transported in open rail cars to ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Stockton, and Richmond — areas that are home to communities already disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution. The federal coal leasing program’s significant contributions to these climate and environmental justice issues must be closely scrutinized by BLM before coal leasing can be resumed.”
 
In 2016, the Obama Administration decided to place a moratorium on new coal leases while it initiated a comprehensive environmental review of the program. However, the Trump Administration ceased the Obama Administration’s review and resumed issuing new leases. In response, as mentioned above, the California-led coalition filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Montana, alleging that BLM’s decision to restart the federal coal leasing program without any environmental review violated NEPA. The court agreed and reinstated the moratorium on new leases. In 2021, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland separately initiated a programmatic review of the coal leasing program that remains pending. Attorney General Bonta also submitted public comment on that review.
 
In their comment letter, the California-led coalition again urges BLM to fully consider all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of issuing new coal leases under the program, including:
 
Climate Change: Federal coal production, transport, and consumption are estimated to account for approximately 11 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (and that does not account for the additional emissions attributable to domestic coal consumed abroad). As the western U.S. battles record-breaking wildfires, unprecedented drought, and extreme heat, BLM must consider the heavy toll of climate change on the states’ economies, residents, and natural resources. In 2020 alone, there were 22 weather events that each cost the economy at least $1 billion, the most recorded since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began tracking the cost of these disasters. The average number of annual billion-dollar events since 1980 is eight; the average number since 2018 is more than double, at 18. While states like California have long been at the forefront of the fight against climate change, state programs alone are not enough. Reducing coal production and consumption (domestically and abroad) is one of the lowest-hanging fruits in state — and federal — efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Environmental Justice: All communities should be able to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a safe and healthy environment. Too often, however, low-income communities, communities of color, and tribal and indigenous communities lack access to these necessities. The federal coal leasing program adds to their environmental burdens, both in the communities surrounding coal mines and elsewhere. In California, millions of tons of coal are transported each year in open rail cars to ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Stockton, and Richmond — through and into communities that are already disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution and that suffer the resulting health consequences. For example, particulate matter emissions from the storage and handling of coal can cause or contribute to a wide variety of serious health problems, including asthma, bronchitis, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer. While numerous environmental impacts of the federal coal leasing program remain to be addressed — including impacts to water quality, air quality, and wildlife — the coalition specifically urges BLM to consider the environmental justice impacts from the export of federal coal.
 
Further, with respect to existing leases, the attorneys general request that BLM incorporate the social cost of carbon and social cost of methane into the royalty rate for leases as they come up for 10-year renewals; and deny all pending and future requests for royalty relief as improper fossil fuel subsidies.
 
In sending the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. 
 
A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

Attorney General Bonta and Coastal Commission Executive Director Dr. Huckelbridge Celebrate U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision to Deny Review of Injunction Blocking Fracking Off California Coast

June 5, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Coastal Commission Executive Director Dr. Kate Huckelbridge today issued the following statements in response to the decision by the United States Supreme Court to deny oil and gas interests’ petition for certiorari in the case American Petroleum Institute v. Environmental Defense Center. By denying the petition, the Supreme Court is allowing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2022 decision to stand, which affirmed an injunction obtained by California and non-profit organizations blocking the United States Department of the Interior (Interior) from authorizing fracking on offshore platforms off the coast of California without further environmental review. 

“One of our prized jewels is our beautiful coastline, and with today’s decision, we are able to continue protecting it from harmful fracking,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The science and the law were on our side, and the Supreme Court agreed that there was no reason to continue this litigation." 

“Today's decision is a victory for California’s coast and ocean,” said California Coastal Commission Executive Director Dr. Huckelbridge. “We are pleased that the Coastal Commission can continue to carefully scrutinize offshore fracking, as part of our mandate to protect state waters.”

In its 2022 decision, the Ninth Circuit held that agencies within Interior — specifically the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement — violated the National Environmental Policy Act in 2016 when they found that fracking on the offshore platforms would pose “no significant impact” to the environment, and also held that they violated the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act. 

In December 2016, the California Attorney General’s Office and the California Coastal Commission filed a lawsuit challenging the agencies’ actions, which would have cleared the way for fracking, acidizing, and other advanced well-stimulation treatments on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California.

Attorney General Bonta Submits Comment Letter Supporting First-Ever Proposed EPA Regulation of PFAS in Drinking Water

May 31, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a multistate comment letter supporting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) historic effort to better protect Americans’ drinking water supply. Published on March 29, 2023, the EPA has proposed a new rule to set — for the first time ever — drinking water standards for certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as “PFAS” or toxic “forever chemicals.” These chemicals pose serious risks to public health and the environment. Nearly 100% of Californians tested have PFAS present in their blood and contaminated drinking water is a key route of this mass exposure. The EPA’s proposed rule would require drinking water that exceeds its PFAS limits to be treated. There is currently no federal regulation of PFAS chemicals in drinking water. 

“The EPA deserves to be commended for doing something that hasn’t been done before: aggressively tackling PFAS contamination in our drinking water,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Known to contribute to various types of cancers, liver diseases, diabetes, and other ailments, PFAS are a serious problem that require serious solutions. The EPA’s rule is backed by science, well within the agency’s legal authority, and would reduce risks to human health. I enthusiastically support it.”

The EPA’s proposed rule would apply to Public Water Systems (PWS). Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), a PWS is defined as a system that has at least 15 service connections and/or that regularly serves at least 25 individuals on at least 60 days out of the year. Six PFAS chemicals, which are commonly found in drinking water in California and around the country, would be addressed by the EPA’s proposed rule: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and its ammonium salt (known collectively as GenX), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Specifically, the EPA’s proposed rule would:  

  • Set a contaminant limit of four parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS;
  • Set a Hazard Index of 1.0 as the contaminant limit in drinking water for the four remaining PFAS chemicals — PFHxS, GenX, PFNA, and PFBS — and any mixture containing one or more of them. A Hazard Index greater than 1.0 indicates that the combined exposures may pose a potential risk to human health, while an index less than 1.0 suggests that the risks are likely to be low. A Hazard Index approach is widely accepted by regulators and the scientific community when exposure to a mixture of PFAS chemicals in drinking water occurs simultaneously. The EPA intends to provide water systems with a web-based form that will automatically calculate the Hazard Index for them; and
  • Require a PWS that exceeds the above limits to take action to treat and/or address the problematic water source.

PFAS are widely used in consumer products including food packaging, cookware, clothing, carpets, shoes, fabrics, polishes, waxes, paints, and cleaning products, as well as in firefighting foams designed to quickly smother liquid fuel fires. These so-called "forever chemicals" are stable in the environment, resistant to degradation, persistent in soil, and known to leach into groundwater.

The California Attorney General’s office is committed to addressing PFAS contamination. In November 2022, the office filed a lawsuit against PFAS manufacturers — including 3M and DuPont — for endangering public health, causing irreparable harm to the state's natural resources, and engaging in a widespread campaign to deceive the public; in November 2021, the office joined a multistate letter to the United States Senate supporting pending PFAS legislation; in June 2020, the office joined a multistate letter urging the EPA to regulate PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act; and in April 2020, the office joined a multistate letter to the EPA advocating rigorous PFAS standards for imported products under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. 

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

Attorney General Bonta: Our Wetlands Deserve Federal Protections, California Will Continue to Fight to Protect Our Waterways

May 25, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement following a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA, which narrowed the scope of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. Today’s decision hampers federal wetland protections and the Clean Water Act’s goal of improving and maintaining the quality of the nation's waters.

“Despite today’s disappointing decision, California will continue to do all we can to protect our waterways and the communities and biodiversity they sustain,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Supreme Court’s decision today narrowed federal protections under the Clean Water Act, making it all the more critical for states to use their authority to increase water quality protections. We urge Congress to broaden the scope of the Clean Water Act in light of today’s ruling, but in the meantime, we will continue to use every tool available to us under the law to protect our precious waterways and the people and ecosystems that depend on them.”

The Clean Water Act serves as a strong federal foundation for water pollution control and water quality protection that preserves the integrity of our waters. While the Act has resulted in dramatic improvements to water quality in the United States, its overriding objective has not yet been achieved. Many of the nation’s waters fail to meet water quality standards. The Act specifically authorizes states to adopt water quality protections beyond those set forth in federal law. California has adopted stringent wetlands regulations that will continue to safeguard our wetlands as federal protections are shrinking. 

Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Multistate Coalition Urging the FTC to Strengthen Environmental Marketing Standards

April 25, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

States call for higher benchmarks for Green Guides standards on environmental advertising to prohibit deceptive marketing to consumers

OAKLAND – Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a multistate coalition in submitting comments urging the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to strengthen its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, or “Green Guides,” which states like California use to hold marketers accountable and protect consumers. In a letter sent to FTC Chair Lina Khan, Attorney General Bonta was joined by 15 attorneys general in calling for updates to the federal Green Guides to bolster consumer protection laws against advertising that overstates environmental benefits, often called “greenwashing.” 

“California is a leader in reducing waste, enacting environmental laws with the highest standards, and protecting and preserving our precious natural resources. FTC’s Green Guides must be updated and strengthened to better ensure individuals and businesses can base their consumer decisions on accurate information,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We are urging the federal government to go even further in developing strong standards to protect people from misleading information and to establish a stringent baseline for environmental marketing claims.”

The Green Guides were first developed in 1992 by the FTC to hold marketers accountable for deceptive marketing claims under state consumer protection laws. The Green Guides are an essential tool in public and private efforts to address critical environmental issues by helping to ensure that consumers are not misled when making purchasing decisions based on products and services’ environmental benefits.

The states recommend continuing to publish, clarify, and strengthen the Green Guides. The multistate coalition advises the FTC to expand the scope of the Green Guides to consider how the standards for each environmental marketing claim could be clarified and strengthened to better ensure they are supported by real environmental benefits. Additionally, the states argue that the Green Guides should not preclude states and localities from enacting stronger standards.

More specifically, the states advise that the following be included in updated guidance: 

  • Voluntary carbon offsets should ensure a reduction in GHG emissions that is additional to any reduction that would likely have occurred without the purchase of the offset.
  • The definition of “compostable” should incorporate both scientific standards and the known practical limitations of composting at scale.  
  • FTC should make explicit that “recyclable” means what the FTC has intended it to mean and what consumers understand it to mean: that when the consumer properly disposes of a “recyclable” item, it is actually recycled as a matter of course.
  • A renewable energy claim should be underwritten by actual environmental benefit, wherein marketers who make renewable energy claims must actually procure and use renewable energy.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta was joined by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

Attorney General Becerra Denounces Unlawful Proposal to Undermine National Environmental Policy Act

March 11, 2020
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, co-leading a coalition of 20 attorneys general, filed a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration’s proposed rule to undercut implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposal by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) would curtail requirements under NEPA that federal agencies review and assess the impact of their actions on the environment. The proposal would weaken implementation of one of the nation’s preeminent tools for combatting environmental harms, safeguarding public health, and protecting communities from pollution. In their comment letter, the coalition argues that the proposed changes to NEPA’s regulations are unlawful, unjustified, and should be withdrawn.  

“The Trump Administration is rewriting the law in order to fast-track projects that pollute our air and water,” said Attorney General Becerra. “NEPA was enacted to provide a critical check on federal actions in our backyard. My office stands ready to fight against the Trump Administration’s attempt to open countless loopholes for polluters to avoid any NEPA analysis. At the California Department of Justice we will continue to fight for a clean, healthy, and safe environment for all Californians.”

Enacted in 1969, NEPA is one of the nation’s foremost environmental statutes. NEPA requires that before any federal agency undertakes a “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” it must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action, alternatives to the action, and any available mitigation measures. Numerous federal actions, from the approval of significant energy and infrastructure projects to key decisions concerning the management of federal public lands, require compliance with NEPA. CEQ’s proposed rule would upend the ability of federal agencies to comprehensively evaluate the impacts of their actions on the environment and public health. 

In the comment letter, the coalition asserts that the proposed rule:

  • Violates NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act;
  • Relies on a deficient rulemaking process that shuts out public participation by providing insufficient notice and limited opportunity for public comment;
  • Limits the scope of impacts considered in environmental reviews, including the impact of greenhouse gas emissions; and
  • Unlawfully and without justification limits the requirement that an agency evaluate reasonable alternatives. 

In August 2018, Attorney General Becerra urged CEQ to carefully consider any changes to NEPA regulations and to prioritize the environment and public health if the Trump Administration chose to move forward with revisions to its guidance.

Joining Attorney General Becerra are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the comment is available here.

Attorney General Becerra Blasts Trump Administration’s Irrational Rule Repealing Critical Protections under the Clean Water Act

January 23, 2020
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Under the rule, a large portion of California’s surface waters would be deprived of federal protection

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today issued the following statement on the Trump Administration’s announcement of a final rule redefining Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act to limit the scope of the Act’s protections:

“This irrational, ill-conceived rule is yet another attempt by the Trump Administration to dismantle the critical environmental protections upon which we all rely,” said Attorney General Becerra. “Today’s announcement is an unlawful assault on the Clean Water Act and we’re prepared to take action. California is not interested in going back to the days when backroom deals and dirty water were the norm.”

In April, Attorney General Becerra filed a comment letter urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw a proposed rule that would significantly narrow Clean Water Act jurisdiction and exclude many of our nation’s waterways from the Act's purview. This change would eliminate federal protections for many of California’s wetlands, rivers, creeks, streams, and tributaries.