|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Planning for 2010 Florida Legislative Session
The Florida Legislature is already ramping up for the next session. Interim Committee meetings started in October with presentations from state agencies. The budget will attract a lot of attention again this year because Florida’s income is projected to fall $2.6 billion short. This means environmental programs will continue to be at risk. Sierra Club volunteers made a difference during the last Florida Legislative Session and we’re gearing up to do the same for 2010. Please consider joining us.
Last year Sierrans made hundreds of calls, sent emails, wrote letters to the editor, and personally contacted their legislators. This activism was instrumental in sevaral cases and our best defense against the huge lobbying effort developers and others make to get "their" laws passed. Legislators tell us they need to know that their constituents care about the environment.
In the next session, issues that will claim center stage include:
Off/near shore oil drilling, Waste minimization, Growth Management, Transportation, and Water Allocations.
To join in and continue to help Sierra Club have an impact in 2010, sign up for our “member only” listserv, FL-FLORIDA-REPORT. You will get updates on our progress and alerts when immediate action is needed. Go to www.sierraclub.org/memberlists (have your membership number available).
In addition to joining the list, now is the perfect time to meet with your legislators in their district offices to let them know what is important to you. You can find their contact information at www.myfloridahouse.gov and www.flsenate.gov.
The Legislative Advisory Committee works with our lobbyist, David Cullen, to research and prioritize issues, craft arguments, and educate our legislators. The members of this year’s committee are: Dwight Adams, Kathy Cantwell, Cecilia Height, Lisa Hinton, Terry Janssen, Tom Larson, Drew Martin, Demetra McBride, and Rosalie Shaffer. We need more help. To volunteer please email Frank Jackalone, frank.jackalone@sierraclub.org.
2009 Florida Legislative Session
The Florida Sierra Club Steering Committee, Group Chairs, and Group Advisory Council , met in December last year to identify important legislative issues for 2009. For details of our original goals and focus, you can download this Adobe PDF file.
The 2009 Session in a Nutshell
With very few bright spots for the environment, the
spring 2009 Florida Legislature has the distinction
of being the most damaging session for the
environment in decades. Governor Crist especially
let us down, failing to veto even the worst bills. Regulatory programs
were especially hard-hit.
Some of the worst outcomes
- Florida Forever Funding was eliminated from the budget.
- SB 360 guts a major part of growth management in Florida.
- SB 2080 eliminates transparency and restricts public input into
Water Management District Governing Board decisions.
- The Governor’s climate change program collapsed. No clean car
rule, no renewable energy standard, etc.
- Near shore drilling (not offshore drilling) within Florida’s state
waters didn’t pass, but it was approved by one house of the
legislature. That would have been unthinkable in the past.
Synopsis
Drilling off our coasts failed to pass. The bill that passed the House
died in the Senate. Your calls made a difference here. Widespread
grassroots action was able to thwart big money, big oil and big
pressure.
We held off offshore drilling, but did not achieve a Renewable
Portfolio Standards (RPS) bill.
On other energy issues the Clean Cars bills also died.
The voter suppression bills, SB 956 / HB 7149, did not pass.
They contained bad language relating to paid petition gatherers as
well as a raft of other voter disenfranchisement provisions. A broad
coalition of activists coupled with outraged editorial boards made
the legislature lie low and the bills died.
Wetlands preemption, HB 73 did pass. This bill requires DEP and
Water Management Districts to expedite environmental resource
permits for projects that are identified by local governments as
“targeted industry businesses.” A parochial economic calculation is
allowed to supersede the state’s responsibility to perform a thorough
review of projects that affect our wetlands. Further, charter
counties with more than 1.2 million people that have entered into
a delegation agreement with the state have an even lower bar to
expediting permitting.
The Springs legislation did not pass, as the House did not even
file a companion bill. However, we did get seagrass and coral reef
protection.
The worst of the “streamlining” bills all died. The U.S. Sugar deal
should be able to go through. The CSX bill that included Sun Rail
and Tri Rail did not succeed as an amendment to the Transportation
package and will not happen this year.
The legislature made numerous budget decisions detrimental
to environmental issues. These included permanent diversions of
funds from trust funds, “sweeps” of available cash in trust funds
and, of course, elimination of funding for a new issue of Florida
Forever bonds.
Summary of bills we wanted Gov. Crist to veto
but he didn’t (he was 0 for 6)
HB 73 Expedited Permitting — Requires the Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Water Management
Districts (WMDs) to adopt a program to expedite wetland and
environmental resource permits and to approve or deny permits
within 45 days for identified “target industry businesses.” The
bill also extends expedited permitting to charter counties with
populations of over 1.2 million that have delegation agreements
with the DEP, and it stipulates that “the [county] governing board's
decision shall be made without consideration of the project's
geographic location within the charter county.”
SB 494 Water Resources — Establishes a model fertilizer
ordinance and a mandatory process for counties and cities that want
to adopt a stronger ordinance. The new statutory requirements,
retroactive to Jan. 1, 2009, will serve as de facto state preemption
of new county and municipal fertilizer ordinances.
SB 2080 Water Resources — Delegates all permitting decisions
to executive directors of Water Management Districts. Prohibits
WMD board members from intervening in any way.
SB 360 Growth Management — Called the “developers’
dream” of the session, this bill de-regulates much of growth in
areas that are already impacted by development. Among many
bad provisions, it does away with transportation concurrency
requirements in areas that have at least 1000 people per square mile
(about one home per 1.5 acres), leaving Florida taxpayers to foot
the bill for these infrastructure costs caused by new development.
It also does away with the requirement for DRI reviews for large
projects in these same areas. A suit has been filed against this bill by
several local governments.
HB 7053 Rural Agricultural Areas — Promotes the
identification and expansion of Rural Agricultural Industrial
Centers, parcels of land on which there is an operating agricultural
industrial/biomass facility that employs at least 200 full-time
employees. This bill would allow a single landowner to preempt
the ability of local governments and the communities they serve to
determine the specifics of their comprehensive plan and also shortcircuits
the Departrment of Community Affairs review.
HB 1065 Aircraft Safety/Wildlife Hazards — Allows airport
personnel to harass wildlife, including endangered species, without
penalty. Additionally, airports are allowed to drain surrounding
wetlands to eliminate habitat that could attract wildlife.
We thank all our volunteers and staff for their hard work that at
least prevented the session from being any worse than it was. You, Sierra Club members, were a
most important part of the program with your well-written e-mails
and phone calls to legislators.
Legislative Activism Training for Sierra Club Groups
Training in Legislative Activism was held at the Sierra Club Florida meeting on August 29, 2009 from noon to 6p.m. at Eckerd College.
|
|
Letters to Gov. Crist asking for veto of bad legislation
Dear Governor Crist:
Sierra Club Florida urges you to veto HB 73, titled “The Mike McHugh Act.”
This bill would threaten our wetlands, forests, lakes, rivers, bays and coastal estuaries by rushing the environmental permitting process for economic development projects. It would force charter counties to ignore the proximity of Florida’s special places (e.g. Everglades, Biscayne Bay) by prohibiting them from considering “geographic location” in all delegated environmental resource permitting decisions.
Specifically, the bill would:
1) Require that charter counties disregard “geographic location” when considering wetlands and environmental resource permit decisions – In lines 48 to 69, the bill amends section 380.0657, Florida Statutes, to extend expedited permitting to charter counties with populations of over 1.2 million that have delegation agreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or the county’s Water Management District. It also stipulates that the county governing board's decision “shall be made without consideration of the project's geographic location within the charter county.” By eliminating consideration of geographic location, HB 73 would require these counties to ignore whether the proposed industrial facility is located next to a sensitive resource, such as critical drinking water supply, endangered species feeding or breeding habitat, fish nursery area, bathing beach, park or wildlife refuge. For example, Miami-Dade County could expedite permits adjacent to and impacting Everglades and Biscayne National Parks.
2) Reduce to 45 days the time for DEP and Water Management Districts to approve or deny wetland and environmental resource permits - In lines 22 to 47, the bill amends section 380.0657, Florida Statutes, to require the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Water Management Districts (WMDs) to adopt a program to expedite wetland and environmental resource permits and to approve or deny permits within 45 days for identified “target industry businesses,” loosely defined in section 288.106 of Florida Statute as those that broaden the industrial base, promote diversification and economic development, and are not seasonal. Meeting the current 90- day standard is already difficult due to the complexity of the projects and affected ecosystems and insufficient staff to carry out thorough reviews. A 45-day requirement would worsen these problems, resulting in rubber-stamped permits which lack adequate review of environmental impacts. It will also produce more “default” permits—those required to be issued automatically, regardless of the environmental damage the activity may cause, simply because the permit clock ran out.
The cumulative effect of this rush to issue permits would be a great deal of environmental damage, including loss of wetlands; loss of biodiversity; pollution of our rivers, bays and coastal waters; and threats to the quality and quantity of our drinking water supplies. Such environmental damage would carry significant negative economic impacts as well.
Please veto HB 73 which would legally set industrial sprawl as a higher State interest than protection of our essential water resources and threatened wetlands, rivers, lakes, bays, forests and wildlife.
Dear Governor Crist:
Sierra Club Florida urges you to veto HB 1065, titled “The Airline Safety and Wildlife Protection Act of Florida.”
Sierra Club strongly supports strong and effective measures to ensure the safety of aviation passengers, and is confident that such protection is already afforded under the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 68A-9.010 (Taking Nuisance Wildlife). The only additional effect of HB 1065 would be to undermine the balanced standards of existing State Code and Statutes, and to promote the arbitrary taking of wildlife (both nuisance and benign) and likely destruction of wetlands and other vital habitat proximate to Florida airports. Further, it would allow airport authorities and managers the broad discretion and authority of after-the-fact permitting, while extending immunities to airports, their employees, agents, contractors and Boards.
Specifically, the bill would:
1) Grant airports the authority to dredge, fill and otherwise impact wetlands, surface waters and stormwater management systems, even though passenger safety has already been recognized and provided for by the State under F.A.C. 68A-9.010. The Florida Administrative Code s. 68A-9.010 provides for the taking of nuisance wildlife and, on airport property, specifically extends those powers to include endangered, threatened or species of special concern which “pose an imminent jeopardy to aircraft safety and human life” (F.A.C. 68A-9.010(4)). F.A.C. 68A-9.010 sets forth standards and methodologies for the taking and removal of those species that may pose a nuisance or threat. By contrast, HB1065 allows for preemptive taking of habitat, which can result in impairment of wetlands and other state waters, and the destruction of collateral species that do not pose a threat to airline safety.
2) Allow airports to supersede the authority specifically granted FDEP, water management districts, and local governments under F.S. Chapter 373, and to secure after-the-fact permits for the arbitrary destruction of wetlands, other surface waters and/or alteration of exiting stormwater management systems. – In lines 63 to 70, the bill:
- Allows an airport, or any entity owning or operating an airport, to use and act upon its own discretion before meeting the permitting requirements of F.S. Chapter 373 (to acquire permits prior to environmental action), and only requires that the airport operator seek a retroactive permit within one year after it has dredged or filled wetlands or surface waters or altered stormwater systems.
- Facilitates irreparable damage to or destruction of wetlands, surface waters or stormwater management systems that is currently avoided by established permitting principles. In establishing a chronology of action that places the discretion of airports before objective review by appropriate authorities.
- Fails to provide an airport, its owner or operator with any standards or criteria to be used when it makes a finding that an emergency condition exists.
3) Grant an override of local authority. In lines 74 to 80, Subsection (4) provides that, if the action chosen by an airport authority, or any entity owning or managing an airport, conflicts “or appears to conflict” with the environmental, permitting, land-use, comprehensive plan or other rules, restrictions, or requirements under the law of local agencies, then the power and authority of airport authority or any entity owning or managing an airport shall control.
4) Extend immunity from liability for actions undertaken by airport authorities, owners or operators. In lines 81 to 89, Subsection (5) extends immunity to include “any officer, employee, contractor or employee . . . or any member of the airport’s governing body”, excepting only intentional or negligent torts. This language throws the burden of proof upon local agencies, non-profit organizations, foundations, or members of the public to demonstrate an intentional tortious act, or to prove negligence (the definition of which is clouded by the subjective judgment and power granted by HB 1065 to airport authorities, owners or operators, some of whom may reside within or outside the State of Florida).
5) Circumvent the Authority of the FDEP and Water Management Districts to Protect and Manage Wetlands, Surface Waters and Stormwater Management Systems. Under Chapter 373, the State of Florida recognized that waters in the state are among its basic resources (373.016(1)). With specific reference to surface waters, the State undertook to protect their ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic values, and vested that duty and power in the water management districts (373.451-373.4595, otherwise known as the “Surface Water Improvement and Management Act”). Again, under s. 373.418, the State has vested authority over stormwater management systems to the Department of Environmental Protection and governing boards of the water management districts. In addition, Chapter 373 provides a speedy, efficient system for permit review by the FDEP or water management districts (373.4141); and further provides FDEP and the water management districts exceptional powers to take emergency measures, including those to safeguard life and property (373.439).
373.026 General powers and duties of the department.--The department, or its successor agency, shall be responsible for the administration of this chapter at the state level. However, it is the policy of the state that, to the greatest extent possible, the department may enter into interagency or interlocal agreements with any other state agency, any water management district, or any local government conducting programs related to or materially affecting the water resources of the state.
The State of Florida has already provided for the safety of aviation and airline passengers, and the security of state water systems and wildlife, through a balanced, effective and proven network of existing regulation. The only additional impact or effect of HB 1065 is to substitute the prior judgment of commercial entities for that of State and local agencies, and to encourage damage or irreparable or irreversible harm to state water resources before testing those actions under an existing system of standards, review and accountability.
Please veto HB 1065 which would legally set commercial expediency as a higher State interest than protection of our essential water resources and threatened wetlands, surface waters, stormwater systems, and wildlife.
Dear Governor Crist:
Sierra Club Florida urges you to veto CS/HB 7053, titled “Rural Agricultural Industrial Centers.”
This bill would allow a single landowner to preempt the ability of local governments and the communities they serve to determine the specifics of their comprehensive plan. The bill also short circuits the Dept. of Community Affairs review of urban sprawl.
Specifically, the bill would:
- 1) Preempt local governments and communities - In lines 76 to 106, the bill amends section 163.3177 Florida Statutes, to require a local government to transmit an application for a comprehensive plan amendment if an owner of land in a rural agricultural industrial center makes application for such an amendment.
If an owner of land in a rural agricultural industrial center as defined in subsection (b):
• Applies for an amendment to the local comprehensive plan that would allow for expansion of the existing agricultural uses of the center’s facilities or to allow for the expansion of the center to include new industrial uses; and
• The plan amendment meets certain low threshold conditions dealing with size, number of jobs to be created, available or planned infrastructure, and environmental impact (see lines 85-98); then
• The local government is required to transmit the application with relevant amendments to the state land planning agency.
This required transmittal of the plan amendment is contrary to the requirement for a majority vote of the governing body in favor of such transmittal and renders the required public hearing meaningless:
163.3184 Florida Statutes
(15) PUBLIC HEARINGS.--
(a) The procedure for transmittal of a complete proposed comprehensive plan or plan amendment pursuant to subsection (3) and for adoption of a comprehensive plan or plan amendment pursuant to subsection (7) shall be by affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the members of the governing body present at the hearing. The adoption of a comprehensive plan or plan amendment shall be by ordinance. For the purposes of transmitting or adopting a comprehensive plan or plan amendment, the notice requirements in chapters 125 and 166 are superseded by this subsection, except as provided in this part.
- 2) Presumes rural agricultural industrial centers are consistent with the section of the Administrative Code dealing with Urban Sprawl – In lines 108 to 111, the bill provides that an amendment meeting the requirements of “this subsection” is presumed to be consistent with rule 9J-109 5.006(5). This presumption puts the burden of proof in exactly the wrong place. The applicant should have the burden of showing that the application actually is consistent with the requirements of the law, not the other way around. The bill gives the applicant (the landowner) an easy bypass of the 68 paragraphs and 1658 words of the rule section titled “Review of Plans and Plan Amendments for Discouraging the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl.” All that is necessary is to meet the conditions stated in the bill and none of the provisions of the Rule apply. (please see attached addendum)
- 3) Allows explosive growth in comprehensive plan – In lines 85 to 87, the limits of expansion are stated as: “[Must] Not increase the physical area of the existing rural agricultural industrial center by more than 50 percent or 320 acres, whichever is greater.” In other words a facility currently covering five acres automatically qualifies for comprehensive plan amendment allowing an expansion of 6400 percent (1/2 square mile). Similarly, an existing center on ten square miles would automatically qualify for a five square mile expansion under this bill.
We urge you to veto this bill as a vital step to protect Florida’s environment and the health of our existing urban and rural communities.
Dear Governor Crist:
Sierra Club Florida urges you to veto CS/CS/SB 360, titled “The Community Renewal Act.”
This bill would undermine the ability of the State’s Department of Community Affairs and our regional planning councils to regulate growth throughout Florida.
Specifically, the bill would:
- 1) Create a distorted definition of dense urban land areas - In lines 235 to 242, the bill amends section 163.3164, Florida Statutes, to redefine dense urban land areas as a municipality or county that has an average of at least 1,000 people per square mile of land area or a county which has a population of at least 1 million. The definition is woefully inadequate; 1000 people per square mile is approximately one home per 1.5 acres. This would allow many low-density suburban communities and rural towns to fit into this generous definition of dense urban land areas.
- 2) Grant easily-obtained exemptions to State transportation concurrency requirements – In lines 472 to 687, the bill amends section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, to provide a transportation concurrency exception to any county or municipality that fits into the new definition of dense urban land areas. For a county or municipality that doesn’t qualify as a dense urban area, the bill would allow it to provide the designation to any land classified in its comprehensive plan as urban infill, part of a community redevelopment area or part of an urban service area. This new policy could encourage so many requests for exceptions that it would lead to a wholesale abandonment of state transportation concurrency requirements.
- 3) Gut the State’s Development of Regional Impact process – In lines 1145 to 1218, the bill amends section 380.06, Florida Statutes, to exempt from the development of regional impact process any proposed developments in those counties and municipalities that fit into the new definition of dense urban land areas. For a county or municipality that doesn’t quality as a dense urban area, the bill would allow it to provide the designation to any land classified in its comprehensive plan as urban infill, part of a community redevelopment area or part of an urban service area, thereby granting that area, too, an exemption from the DRI process. This would destroy the intent of state law to require regional planning councils to weigh the impacts of proposed development in one county on its neighboring counties.
1000 Friends of Florida estimates that following implementation of SB 360, the entire territory of eight of Florida’s largest counties and 245 cities throughout Florida would qualify for transportation concurrency exemptions and Development of Regional Impact (DRI) exemptions.
We urge you to veto this bill as a vital step to protect Florida’s environment and the health of our existing urban and rural communities.
Dear Governor Crist:
Sierra Club Florida urges you to veto CS/CS/CS/SB 494.
In SB 494, fertilizer management standards have been placed at the end of a water use bill. Legislators were asked to support the positive water conservation language in the bill and to ignore the damaging fertilizer management language – a weak model ordinance and de facto preemption of more stringent fertilizer management standards together have the potential to preclude meaningful reduction of nutrient pollution in the state and therefore outweigh the positive steps regarding water conservation measures and the training and certification of fertilizer applicators provided by the bill.
Florida communities are poised to follow the lead provided this year by the City of St. Petersburg and pass strong fertilizer ordinances similar to those passed along the southwest gulf coast. However, it is unclear whether or not SB 494 will allow them to proceed.
The bill hinders the effective management of urban fertilizers and the protection of water resources by:
1) Promoting and mandating a weak model ordinance that is NOT based on water quality science;
During the legislative process, the Sierra Club argued against SB 494 on grounds related to the shortcomings of the FDEP Model Ordinance (2009):
(a) The use of the DACS Urban Turf Rule as the basis for the fertilizer content and application rate standards – the science upon which the Turf Rule is based is turf quality science and not water quality science. The standards in the rule are not based on any research relating to stormwater runoff of fertilizer on the compacted soils found in Florida residential communities. If this model ordinance is to be used as a water quality improvement measure then the science upon which it is based should relate to the profound negative impact residential fertilizer has on our inland and coastal waters and not on what it takes to get the greenest lawn possible.
One of many examples of the inadequacy of the Turf Rule relates to Phosphorous. There is consensus between IFAS and FDEP that phosphorous application should not be considered on existing turf until a soil or tissue test shows a deficiency. Yet the Turf Rule encourages phosphorous application up to .5 lbs per 1000 ft2 before a soil test is needed. Who will be liable for the pounds of unnecessary phosphorous allowed in our waterways because the Turf Rule is used rather than the current IFAS and FDEP recommendation?
(b) An exemption of “weed and feed” products from management due to a claim made by DACS that the state pesticide preemption statute (FS Chapter 482) precludes any such management. On 5/11/09 FDEP notified the Sierra Club that, on the contrary, there are no legal reasons for such an exemption and a correction will need to be made.
This mistake by FDEP regarding the “weed and feed” products demonstrates how poorly vetted the FDEP Model is and proves that the model is not ready for state-wide consumption.
The “weed and feed” exemption issue also highlights the most pressing reason to ensure that the language in a state-wide fertilizer management law be free and clear of any obstacles to the most protective of water quality standards. FS Chapter 482, the statute which includes preemption of pesticide management, does not help communities protect themselves from pesticide pollution but rather makes them unable to take further measures to address the issue locally – a situation that should not be repeated in relation to fertilizer management.
2) Creating a legal basis for opponents of strong fertilizer management standards to challenge and prevent the implementation of more stringent standards.
Multiple phrases within the bill are vague, ill-defined and open for the widest of interpretation. These ambiguous terms are found within the section on criteria that must be met in order to adopt more stringent standards than are provided by the FDEP Model: “science-based, and economically and technically feasible” (lines 255-256); “necessary” (line 257); “all relevant scientific information” (line 261); “need” (line 264); and “must substantively conform to” (line 272).
The Sierra Club suspects that the imprecise language found in SB 494 can and will be used by opponents of fertilizer management to challenge stronger fertilizer management standards where they are either needed (to reduce nutrient pollution levels) or desired (to prevent nutrient pollution). The bill’s language creates a de facto preemption that will present formidable obstacles to meaningful fertilizer management.
Whether de jure or de facto, preemption of the right of a community to go beyond a minimum protective standard is the antithesis of what the state needs in order to effectively safeguard its water resources.
Who will be liable for the cost of cleaning up a community’s waterways in the face of TMDL requirements after they have been prohibited from preventing the pollution in the first place?
We urge you to veto CS/CS/CS/SB 494 to protect a community’s right to prevent and reduce nutrient pollution to protect their water resources, their economic engines, and their tax dollars.
Dear Governor Crist:
Sierra Club Florida urges you to veto SB 2080, “relating to water resources.”
The bill purports to be about Florida friendly landscaping and was initially supported by many organizations until the last week of the legislative session when a damaging amendment was added. At this time, the legislation would eliminate the public from permitting decisions. It would delegate the power of permitting authority for water use and impacts to water resources to district executive directors and their staff.
Specifically, the bill would:
- 1. Remove authority of the appointed Governing Board and vests authority for permitting water use and resource permits to the district’s executive directors. By amending s. 373.079, F.S. lines 138-146, executive directors would gain a great power which has until now resided in the members of the Governing Board. These board members are appointed to represent various segments of the public and various communities within the boundaries of the districts. In essence they represent the people of that district. Executive directors of the districts are staff and serve many boards for many years. Their responsibility is to the administration of the agency.
- 2. Remove the authority of the Governing Board to conduct a public hearing before issuing a permit affecting water use or resources. Decisions on permits are some of the most influential decisions made in the state today. These decisions involve financial gain and long term effects on natural resources. The public has always exercised the opportunity to express their concerns to the Governing Boards and to watch and listen while a decision is made before them. When decisions are made by staff they are made away from the public eye. These types of decision promote the actuality or appearance of backdoor deals and abuse of power. This is not the government in the sunshine that Floridians expect.
- 3. Allows delegation of permitting decisions to lower level staff. Staff, not appointed by the Governor or approved by the legislature, would be given the authority to issue permits. These permits affect water planning for local governments, affect drainage, and result in long term alteration of Florida’s natural water resources, as well as affect water dependent wildlife resources. Shouldn’t local governments as well as our citizens have some means of voicing their objections to permits they believe endanger one of their most important resources?
The point of creating a water planning and managing agency headed by a governing board instead of a single agency head was not to simply approve contracts or rubberstamp plans but to provide a point of public input for the citizens of Florida on their most basic need – water for homes, business, fish and wildlife habitat. We urge you to veto SB 2080 in the interest of providing open decision making and protection of public interests.
