HomeContact UsE2 EuropeEnvironmentalEnergy E2 Law Blog Insights and Commentary on Global Environmental and Energy Issues Home » The New Environmental Rights Amendment To The New York Constitution The New Environmental Rights Amendment to the New York Constitution By David Mandelbaum & Steven C. Russo on November 8, 2021 POSTED IN CLEAN AIR ACT, CLEAN WATER ACT, COURT CASES, ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, FEATURED, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, STATE & LOCAL, WATER QUALITY On November 2, voters in New York approved “Proposal 2” and adopted a new section 19 to Article I of the state constitution that reads: “Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and to a healthful environment.” It will take effect in January 2022. While the new Environmental Rights Amendment is short and simple, we cannot know yet exactly what it means and what practical implications it will have for businesses and people in New York. We highlight here briefly some thoughts based in part upon the experience in Pennsylvania, which added an Environmental Rights Amendment to its constitution in 1971. Section 19 sets out a new constitutionally protected right of “each person.” That right is part of Article I, the New York Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects rights of people against the government. In general, the Bill of Rights does not create private entitlements of one citizen against another. Thus, section 19 probably constrains government action or requires affirmative government action, but it does not create a right of your neighbor to have you maintain your trees or to stop polluting. In the environmental context, a person might not have “clean air” for many reasons. One of those reasons might be that a neighboring facility pollutes the air. Unless this new section 19 is read by the New York courts in a way different from the way they have read the other 18 sections of the Bill of Rights, section 19 will not give the person whose air is dirty a right to sue the polluter directly. It may give the polluted-upon person a right to insist that the government consider the pollution before allowing the polluting facility to operate or before funding the polluting facility, and it may even create an obligation on the part of the government to regulate the existing polluting facility. But the Bill of Rights generally does not give one citizen the right to sue another. The right each person holds is “to clean air and water, and to a healthful environment.” What counts as “clean” air or water? How much of any pollutant makes the air or the water not “clean”? Does the source of the pollution matter? That is, if soot from a natural fire contaminates the air, is the air not “clean”? What if the soot is from a manmade source outside New York? What if it is from a manmade source in New York, operating lawfully under New York law? Similarly, what counts as a less than “healthful” environment? Does each particular spot in the environment have to be “healthful” if one stayed there all the time? That is, does the environment in Times Square have to be “healthful” when traffic is stopped and the temperature is 95 degrees? Do indoor environments have to be “healthful”? How about in-between environments, like the Lincoln Tunnel? All these issues seem to cry out for legislative or regulatory elaboration on the constitutional text. Elaboration may be on the way through the efforts of New York’s environmental regulator, the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Will this new constitutional language impact NYSDEC permitting decisions? It is likely that NYSDEC will answer that question in the negative, arguing that the existing mandates in New York’s Environmental Conservation Law already evince a state policy aimed to afford New Yorkers clean air, clean water, and a healthful environment. After all, New York’s air permitting regime is based on health-based emissions standards derived from the federal Clean Air Act. The same goes for New York’s clean water regulations, which in some ways go beyond the dictates of the federal Clean Water Act. And other schemes, such as the New York State hazardous waste cleanup laws, solid waste laws, and Brownfield Cleanup Program, surely are aimed at promoting a “healthful” environment. “It would not be at all surprising to see NYSDEC offer the view that these new provisions simply codify in the New York Constitution policy already adopted statutorily and reflected in the Environmental Conservation Law. Pennsylvania may provide some lessons on how New York’s Environmental Rights Amendment will or will not impact environmental regulation in the state. The Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment, adopted in 1971, has three sentences. The first sentence of the Pennsylvania amendment creates a right similar to the New York provision: “The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.” Pa. Const. Art. I, § 27. In 1973, an intermediate appellate court in Pennsylvania set out a three-part test against which to test a government action to determine its constitutionality: Was there compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations relevant to the protection of the Commonwealth’s public natural resources? Does the record reflect a reasonable effort to reduce environmental incursion to a minimum? Does the environmental harm which will result from the challenged decision or action so clearly outweigh the benefits to be derived therefrom that to proceed further would be an abuse of discretion? Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86, 94 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1973), aff’d, 361 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1976). That test made constitutionality depend primarily on compliance with legislative or administrative standards, and therefore deprived the constitutional standard of any serious independent content. In two relatively recent cases, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disavowed the Payne test. Pa. Envt’l Def. Found’n v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017); Robinson Twp. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013)(setting forth a history of the Article I, section 27, jurisprudence); see also Pa. Envt’l Def. Found’n v. Commonwealth, No. 64 MAP 2019 (Pa. July 21, 2021). The court held that neither the legislature nor an executive agency can define a constitutional right. The constitutional right exists independent of the implementing legislation or regulation, not the other way around. In Pennsylvania, the right requires a consideration of the environmental harms of any activity undertaken or permitted by the government against its environmental and other benefits before the government may take any action. That obligation to evaluate environmental impacts exists at every level of government. Robinson Township, for example, invalidated a state law requiring uniform municipal zoning for oil and gas activities because that law precluded municipalities from exercising the required discretion over their own land use decisions under section 27. The cases have not yet made clear whether any government agency has the power to conduct this evaluation without legislative authority to do so, or whether one agency can rely on another to do this work. Nor are all the standards clear; we do not know how much adverse impact is unacceptable. Unlike Pennsylvania, however, New York has a “little NEPA,” the State Environmental Quality Review Act, often referred to as SEQRA. That statute already requires state agencies and local governments to consider the environmental impacts of any discretionary government action, including permit issuance, funding, adoption of regulations and local laws. Therefore, except for laws enacted by the state legislature, New York’s Environmental Conservation Law already mandates that agencies consider the significant adverse environmental impacts of any discretionary actions, mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and balance any unmitigated impacts against other “social, economic, and other essential considerations.” SEQRA, adopted in 1977, has an extensive body of case law interpreting it. It remains to be seen if this added constitutional language will lead to courts exalting consideration of adverse environmental impacts over other valid governmental interests, thus rendering the balancing of interests that is at the heart of SEQRA moot. Given the exalted role that environmental interests already play due to New York’s environmental review statute, it appears unlikely that New York courts will conclude that the codification of environmental rights in the state constitution transforms SEQRA into a substantive law that mandates the trumping of other legitimate governmental obligations in favor of environmental protection at all costs. There is a greater potential, however, that courts could nullify any attempt by the legislature to exempt specific projects or categories of governmental action from environmental review. SEQRA exempted state legislative acts from its purview, but there is no such exemption when it comes to a state constitutional right. The open-ended language in the provision creating this right makes anything possible. While New York courts might read the constitutional right differently from Pennsylvania courts given the existence of SEQRA and the well-established environmental rights embedded through New York’s Environmental Conservation Law, they are likely to agree that a constitutional right cannot be defined exclusively by legislation or regulation. Therefore, one cannot have clarity on what new section 19 will require the New York government to do until courts, potentially with the guidance of NYSDEC, explain what the right means in terms of assessing governmental actions. That is going to take some time. Imagine trying to figure out what “due process” meant before the first case had ever been decided. That is where we are right now. Stay tuned. Tags: Environmental Rights Amendment, New York Print: Email Tweet Like LinkedIn David Mandelbaum David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and… Read more about David Mandelbaum David's Twitter Profile Show more Steven C. Russo Steven C. Russo chairs the firm’s New York Environmental Practice. He focuses his practice on environmental law and litigation, environmental permitting, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, toxic tort litigation, environmental crimes, Brownfields redevelopment, government, energy and … Read more about Steven C. Russo Show more RELATED POSTS Identifying the Natural Resources Subject to the Environmental Rights Amendment Maribel Nicholson-Choice Quoted in Law360 Article, '3 Key Enviro Priorities In The Infrastructure Bill' Another ERA Decision and Some Cautions About Making Government Work Environmental Cases in the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts in 2020 Court Revisits PEDF on Remand: Limits on Environmental Rights Amendment Subscribe to this blog Your website url WEBINAR: WHAT LAWYERS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND GOVERNANCE FACTORS IN CORPORATE DECISION MAKING Listen to our E2 Law Podcast for insights and commentary on global environmental and energy issues. STAY CONNECTED Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow GT on Twitter nJoin the Discussion on Facebook View GT's LinkedIn Profile ANNOUNCEMENTS Turning Back the Clock: CEQ’s Recently Announced NEPA Amendments Aim to Restore Pre-Trump Administration Approach to Environmental Review California Air Resources Board Announces Rulemaking Regarding Small Off-Road Engine Regulations TWEETS BY @GT_LAW Tweets by @GT_Law ABOUT US GT’s Environmental Practice is one of the largest and geographically broadest environmental groups of any law firm based in the United States. Our client-focused, problem-solving approach reflects the commitment to service that has led major national companies in a variety of industry segments. Read More.... BLOG AUTHORS SHOW/HIDE TOPICS Select Category Select Category Agriculture AgTech Air Allocation Announcements Aquaculture Articles Biocides Biofuels Brexit Brownfields California California Carbon Credits carbon emissions CBAM CBD CERCLA CFTC Chemicals China Circular Economy class action Clean Air Act Clean energy Clean Water Act Clean Water Act Climate Change Coal Coal Ash Colorado Committee for Climate Change Commodities Compliance Contamination Court Cases COVID-19 COVID-19 DEP Distributed Energy Resource (DER) DOJ E2 Europe Earth Day Electrical Vehicles Emergency Preparedness Emerging Contaminants Energy Energy and Natural Resources Energy Project Finance & Development Energy Transaction Environment Environmental Environmental Justice Environmental Protection Practice Environmental Rights Amendment Environmental Social & Governance (ESG) Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) EPA EU Europe European Emission Trading Scheme Events Exactions Executive Order Executive Orders Export Controls Farm Bill FAST Act Featured Federal Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Federal Regulation FERC Finance Florida Germany Glyphosate Gore Factors Green Building Greenhouse Gas GT Alert Hazardous Waste Hazardous Waste Hemp Hydrofracking Hydrogen Illinois Import Infrastructure Insurance International International Trade ISRA Latin America Lead paint Legislation Litigation Manufacturing Maryland Mass Torts Massachusetts Massachusetts Mercury Mexico Mexico Michigan Mining Minnesota Minnesota Natural Resources NEPA NEPA Netherlands New Jersey New York no-deal Brexit NPDES Nuclear Nutrient standards Offshore Wind Oil & Gas Oklahoma OSHA Other P3 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Permitting PFAS PFOA PFOS Plastics Podcast Poland Policy Politics Pollution Proposition 65 Prospective Purchaser Agreement public health RCRA REACH Real estate Regulatory Remediation Renewable Energy Renewables Risk management Safe Drinking Water Act Shale Solar Solid waste State & Local Stormwater Substance Superfund Sustainability Tax Technology Texas Toxic Tort trade policy Transactional Transportation Trichloroethylene TSCA UK UK REACH Uncategorized United Kingdom United Kingdom USMCA Utilities Waste Water Water quality Webinar Wetlands Wildlife WOTUS ARCHIVES Select Month Select Month November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 GT LAW BLOGS RECENT POSTS Turning Back the Clock: CEQ’s Recently Announced NEPA Amendments Aim to Restore Pre-Trump Administration Approach to Environmental Review California Air Resources Board Announces Rulemaking Regarding Small Off-Road Engine Regulations The Value of a Right to Flood by an Additional 5.5 Feet Financing EV Infrastructure in the UK The Fairest of Them All: Advocating CERCLA Allocation GT BLOGS EB-5 Insights Florida From the Ground Up Global Trade Monitor GT Israel Law Blog GT LE Blog Hospitality Law Check-In Immigration Compliance E2 Law Blog Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow GT on Twitter nJoin the Discussion on Facebook View GT's LinkedIn Profile Privacy PolicyDisclaimer Greenberg Traurig, LLP (GT) has approximately 2,300 attorneys in 40 locations in the United States, Latin America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. GT has been recognized for its philanthropic giving, diversity, and innovation, and is consistently among the largest firms in the U.S. on the Law360 400 and among the Top 20 on the Am Law Global 100. The firm is net carbon neutral with respect to its office energy usage and Mansfield Rule 4.0 Plus Certified. Web: www.gtlaw.com Copyright © 2021, Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Powered By LexBlog