There’s environmental justice, and there’s bad legislation. She voted against the latter

When I was elected to represent rural California’s Central Valley, I knew that I would face difficult voting decisions. The last few weeks have proved to be just that— difficult.

Recently, I voted against AB 345 in committee, and supporters claim that the Democrats that voted “no” failed to protect our constituents from the harmful effects of oil and gas industry-based pollution. They claim that AB 345 was the only method for disadvantaged communities to seek setbacks from oil and gas production. They allege that we were bought off. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that I carefully studied the language of the bill. I agreed with the unions representing the trades and the firefighters that there is a state agency already creating rules to regulate oil and gas production setbacks. Local jurisdictions already work with regional air quality boards to have specific localized setbacks in place, too. I voted “No” on AB 345 to allow the regulatory process to develop fair rules that include public input, public health data, air and earth sciences, and economics because that is the role of the administration and of state agencies.

AB 345 was an attempt to control and take over that rule-making process and deny public input and participation.

There is a major disconnect between what environmental justice means to rural areas compared to urban cities. Far too often, the poorest and most disadvantaged communities bear a heavy financial cost to meet the state’s laudable environmental goals, driven by organizations who’s policies have increased in California residential electric rates 55.8% higher than the average of other states, and cost commuters 98 cents more per gallon of gasoline than the average of 49 other states.

These costs economically impact poor people in the Central Valley at a massively disproportionate rate than the coastal wealthy residents that largely fund these organizations. That means that communities of color in Senate District 12, who already have lower incomes than the state average, pay a greater share of California’s higher energy costs. Where is the justice in that?

Nonetheless, I continue to meet with the environmental justice community to explain that my political goals focus on fighting to reduce poverty, to create economic opportunity, and to have balanced legislation that produces pathways for retraining, education, and support for new, good paying jobs. This is the justice that disadvantaged communities need, and have demanded that I champion.

I voted against AB 345 because it failed to look at the whole picture. Many people in my district live below the poverty line and good paying jobs are few, and far between. Agriculture faces the constant pressure of California’s “water wars”. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the Central Valley’s economic challenges. I voted “no” because AB 345 risked killing jobs without any plan to avoid the inevitable economic harm that befalls the Central Valley, and because organizations that I trust agreed with the above analysis, wanting to be able to participate in the public regulatory process.

I applaud the young activists who came to my Merced district office for caring about our community. I believe that we can have a strong economy that provides an opportunity for your independence through good paying jobs, affordable homeownership, plus the environmental protections to ensure that our communities enjoy safe drinking water, clean air, and a high quality of life.

I extend an invitation for you to join a discussion with our Central Valley economic development corporations, chambers of commerce, technology incubators at UC Merced and Fresno State, our local governments, and our workers from the trades. Together, we can explore a new direction forward to correct the ways in which AB 345 would have failed us, with good paying jobs around a clean energy economy that could help to lift many in the Central Valley out of poverty.

Over the next few years, as we work to restore California’s once strong economy from the damage caused by the pandemic, the days of passing bills that just boost environmental credentials must give way to legislation that reflects the facts in the real world. The largest risk to public health is still poverty — and I won’t support bills that push more people into poverty, even under the banner of environmental justice.

This story was originally published August 24, 2020 at 1:12 PM.