Anne E. Andy Burt (right) holds signs with other supporters during a legislative session that took place in Augusta at the Maine State House on March 22. Joe Phelan/Kennebec Journal
The House of Representatives failed to approve Tuesday’s proposal to give Maineans a constitutional right of a healthy environment.
The Pine Tree Amendment was opposed by Republicans. They expressed support for clean water but were concerned about the impact it could have on road projects and other infrastructure projects.
“The unintended consequences of this would be huge,” Rep. Michael Perkins, R-Oakland, said. “We can’t do this.”
But supporters, like Rep. Margaret O’Neil, D-Saco, described a healthy environment as “essential to all else,” including other constitutional rights.
“Anyone in Maine would recognize that without a healthy environment, without clean air, clean water and stable ecosystems, we’d have trouble enjoying any other rights or freedoms,” O’Neil said. “Before I can engage in dissenting speech to protect my home from unreasonable searches and seizures, I need to have clean air to breathe.”
The House voted 77 to 59 in favor of the proposal, just short of the two thirds vote required to send it to the voters this fall. The Senate has yet not voted on whether to adopt it. If two-thirds of senators vote for it, the proposal will still be alive and will return to the House for a second try. If not, it dies.
Constitutional amendments must be supported by two-thirds vote of legislators and then must get approval from the voters.
The proposal was sponsored and supported by Sen. Chloe Maxmin (D-Nobleboro) and would add language in the state constitution to make environmental protection a core responsibility for state government.
“The people of the State have the right to a clean and healthy environment and to the preservation of the natural, cultural and healthful qualities of the environment,” the proposed amendment says. “The State may not infringe upon these rights. The State shall preserve, protect and maintain its natural resources for the benefit all citizens, including the future generations.
Critics of the proposal feared that the amendment was too broad, would lead to unnecessary litigation, and essentially shift decision-making authority from the courts to the courts.
Similar concerns were raised last autumn about a constitutional change that would have granted residents a right for food. This proposal was approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly voted for by the voters. Maine is now the first state in the country to have such a right enshrined in its state constitution.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection was against the original Pine Tree Amendment, but did not comment on its final form. It was opposed by the Maine Department of Transportation because it could be used as a blockade for road, bridge, bike path, and other infrastructure projects.
The Maine State Chamber of Commerce and the Maine Municipal Association also opposed the amendment.
I-Warren Rep. William Pluecker supported the amendment, stating that concerns about unintended outcomes were unfounded.
Similar constitutional amendments have been in place in Montana and Pennsylvania for approximately 50 years. Other states are looking at enshrining this right to a healthy environment.
Pluecker stated that the constitutional amendment could be beneficial to people affected by PFAS, or forever chemicals. The chemicals were prevalent in sludge that was routinely spread on farmlands at the state’s urging before the adverse environmental and health impacts were fully known.
“This amendment will drastically empower our citizens as they struggle with PFAS poisoning on our lands and waters,” Pluecker said. “It will help protect our citizens when their rights are denied by this government. Our state campaigned to spread contaminated sludge from urban centers on our precious agricultural soils for years.”
Rep. Jeffrey Hanley, R-Pittston, said the amendment wasn’t needed, because lawmakers have shown a willingness to strengthen environmental protections over the years. He pointed to the Legislature’s recent and unanimous approval of a bill to increase water quality standards in rivers and streams.
“These things happen because legislation happens, because we see a problem and we solve it on the federal level and the state level,” Hanley said. “Amending the constitution is not a trivial thing.”
O’Neil, however, said that the amendment was needed as a backstop for the state’s environmental laws.
“We are lucky that we have strong environmental laws,” O’Neil said. “That said, laws that protect our environment and thus our economy can contain gaps or be undone by political whim.”
« Previous
Next »
Similar Stories
Invalid username/password
To confirm and complete your registration, please check your email.
To reset your password, please use the form below. After you submit your account email, we’ll send you an email with the reset code.