Healey's $3B bill seeks to future-proof Mass. against flash floods and more
Advertisement
During a six hour hearing Tuesday before the joint Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the overwhelming reception for the bill was positive, said Senator Rebecca Rausch of Needham, the committee's co-chair.
'The base has a lot of really strong pieces in it,' she said. 'I'm looking forward to kind of digging in further and to building upon it.'
But in some cases — such as the availability of grants for local preparedness, the mitigation of air pollution in vulnerable neighborhoods, and the protection of nature — advocates say it doesn't go far enough.
Advertisement
The Nature For Massachusetts Coalition, made up of more than 40 local environmental groups, said the bill doesn't provide sufficient funds for the acquisition, restoration, or improvement of nature, which is necessary for many reasons including the sequestration of carbon.
The bill includes $340 million for the five-year term of the bond, but Sam Anderson, director of legislative and government affairs at Mass Audubon, which is a member of the coalition, said that's 'a fraction of what's needed to actually meet our goals.'
At the hearing, many speakers voiced support for increased funding for the state's
Related
:
The act includes $93 million in authorization for seawalls and dam repairs and upgrades, and it establishes a $200 million 'Resilience Revolving Fund' that would provide low-interest loans to municipalities, tribal governments, and water and wastewater districts to improve stormwater systems, restore natural systems, and enhance infrastructure that can reduce flood and heat risks.
As the revolving fund loans get repaid, the money can be loaned out again. It's a program modeled after existing revolving funds for clean water and drinking water, which have seen that for every dollar of initial state and federal investment over the lifetime of the program, three dollars have gone out in loans, according to Antos.
A $3 billion bill may seem hefty, but spending this money on prevention now could save a lot down the line by readying the state for the increased extreme weather events triggered by a warming planet, state officials and advocates said.
Advertisement
Already, there's proof. An earlier culvert replacement program swapped undersized culverts — which couldn't handle increased stream flow during heavy rain events, leading to flooded out roads — with ones that were properly sized.
As a result of those changes, roads that previously flooded out repeatedly 'have not overtopped since, said Katherine Antos, the state's undersecretary of decarbonization and resilience. 'They were able to withstand the 2023 and subsequent storm events that we have had,' she said.
In some ways, the bill is innovating, by proposing big, pricey investments in resilience. In others — as with the requirement that flood risk is disclosed to homebuyers and renters — it's catching up.
'Honestly, Massachusetts was behind what many other states have done in terms of requiring flood disclosures,' Antos said.
As the legislature continues to work on the bill, Rausch said she's hoping one issue that's not currently included — plastics — gets added in.
'We certainly heard in the testimony … about reducing our reliance on fossil fuels,' Rausch said. That goes beyond energy. 'With 99 percent of plastics originating with fossil fuels, we have to address particularly single-use plastics,' she said.
Related
:
If passed, this would be the fourth successive major climate bill, building on legislation that has
set ambitious, legally binding targets for cutting climate-warming pollutions, bolstered the offshore wind industry and other clean energy resources, and streamlined regulatory processes to allow for more clean energy to power the state.
But it would be the first passed during the new Trump administration, when federal funds for climate resilience and clean energy are being eliminated.
Advertisement
'We know that we can't fully fill the hole that the federal government is leaving,' Cooper said. 'But we know that it's that much more important for us to invest, and to do it really wisely.'
Sabrina Shankman can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
11 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Florida congressional districts that eliminated a majority-Black seat upheld by state Supreme Court
Florida's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state's congressional redistricting map, rejecting a challenge over the elimination of a majority-Black district in north Florida that was pushed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. The court, dominated by DeSantis appointees, ruled that restoration of the district that previously united Black communities from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, or across 200 miles, would amount to impermissible racial gerrymandering. That, the majority ruled, violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantees. 'The record leaves no doubt that such a district would be race-predominant. The record also gives us no reasonable basis to think that further litigation would uncover a potentially viable remedy,' said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz in the court's majority opinion. The decision means Florida's current congressional districts that give Republicans a 20-8 advantage over Democrats will remain in place for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. The former north Florida district was most recently represented by a Black Democrat, former Rep. Al Lawson. The new districts divide that area among three Republicans. A panel of three federal judges previously upheld the current congressional districts. 'This was always the constitutionally correct map — and now both the federal courts and the FL Supreme Court have upheld it,' DeSantis said on X. One of the plaintiffs, the National Redistricting Foundation, called the new ruling 'alarming' because it 'diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians' by upholding the GOP-drawn map. 'The court is abandoning the most basic role of the judiciary: to provide justice for the people,' said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the foundation. Earlier redistricting efforts by the state Legislature included versions of the north Florida district that preserved Black voting power. But after a veto by DeSantis, the governor pushed through the current map that eliminated it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court said one problem for the plaintiffs was they did not propose a viable alternative map but only pointed out potential problems with the current one. 'It is not enough in the redistricting context for challengers to identify a flaw in an enacted districting plan and demand that the court send the Legislature back to the drawing board,' the decision said. Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter, contending the lawsuit should be sent back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the challengers a chance to produce different districts. 'By foreclosing further litigation, the majority's decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution,' Labarga wrote. Anderson writes for the Associated Press.
Miami Herald
11 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Florida Supreme Court rejects constitutional challenge to state congressional map
Three years after Gov. Ron DeSantis pushed a congressional redistricting plan through the Legislature, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge by voting-rights groups that argued part of the plan violated the state Constitution. Justices, in a 5-1 decision, said an alternative requested by voting-rights groups for a North Florida district would violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because it would involve racial gerrymandering. The case centered on Congressional District 5, which in the past stretched from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, and elected Black Democrat Al Lawson. During the 2022 redistricting process, DeSantis argued that keeping such a district would be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and successfully pressured lawmakers to overhaul the district. The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as DeSantis, saying there 'is no plausible, non-racial explanation for using a nearly 200-mile-long land bridge to connect the Black populations of Jacksonville and Tallahassee.' The case involved the Equal Protection Clause and a 2010 state constitutional amendment, known as the Fair Districts Amendment, that prohibited drawing districts that would 'diminish' the ability of minorities to 'elect representatives of their choice' — what is often called the amendment's 'non-diminishment' clause. The voting-rights groups argued that the District 5 overhaul violated that requirement because it effectively prevented Black voters in North Florida from electing a candidate of their choice. White Republicans won all North Florida congressional districts in 2022 after the plan was adopted. But the Supreme Court's 48-page majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, said that in redistricting, the Legislature's 'obligation to comply with the non-diminishment clause was bounded by its superior obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause.' 'The Legislature's obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause is superior to its obligation to comply with the non-diminishment clause as interpreted by our court,' Muñiz wrote in the opinion joined by Justices John Couriel, Jamie Grosshans, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso. 'The plaintiffs did not prove the possibility of complying with both the non-diminishment clause and the Equal Protection Clause in North Florida. Therefore, they did not meet their burden to prove the invalidity of the enacted plan.' Justice Jorge Labarga wrote a dissenting opinion that said the Supreme Court should have sent the case back to a circuit judge for a trial on the equal protection issue. He called the majority opinion 'highly consequential.' 'Although the majority conducts an as-applied equal protection analysis (of Congressional District 5), make no mistake — this decision lays the groundwork for future decisions that may render the non-diminishment clause practically ineffective or, worse, unenforceable as a matter of law,' Labarga wrote. He added, 'By foreclosing further litigation, the majority's decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution.' Justice Charles Canady recused himself from the case. Canady, as is common, did not explain the decision, but he is married to state Rep. Jennifer Canady, R-Lakeland. The overhauled Congressional District 5 includes parts of Duval and St. Johns counties and is represented by Republican John Rutherford. The old Congressional District 5 was broken up into other districts. For example, Republican Neal Dunn represents the Tallahassee area in what is Congressional District 2. The plaintiffs, such as the League of Women Voters of Florida and Equal Ground Education Fund, challenged the redistricting plan in 2022 in Leon County circuit court. Circuit Judge J. Lee Marsh agreed with the plaintiffs that the redistricting plan violated the Fair Districts amendment. But the 1st District Court of Appeal overturned that decision in December 2023, prompting the voting-rights groups to go to the Supreme Court. The appeals court's main opinion said protection offered under the non-diminishment clause and under the federal Voting Rights Act 'is of the voting power of 'a politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group.'' It said linking voters across a large stretch of North Florida did not meet such a definition of cohesiveness. While the Supreme Court upheld the redistricting plan Thursday, it disagreed with the appeals court's reasoning. It also pointedly said the appeals court had ignored Supreme Court precedents related to the Fair Districts Amendment. 'The district court cited no authority for the proposition that decisions this (Supreme) Court issues in its original jurisdiction are not binding on lower courts,' Muniz wrote. 'And there is no reason why such decisions are not binding. The district courts' duty to follow our precedents stems from the hierarchical structure established in our Constitution and from this (Supreme) Court's express authority to review certain district court decisions, including those that conflict with our decisions or that expressly construe constitutional provisions.'
The Hill
11 hours ago
- The Hill
Puerto Rico bans gender-affirming care for trans people younger than 21
Transgender Puerto Ricans younger than 21 no longer will have access to gender-affirming hormone therapy or surgeries under legislation signed this week by the U.S. territory's Republican Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón that threatens doctors with criminal penalties. The law approved late Wednesday would punish health care professionals who provide gender-affirming care to minors and young adults with a $50,000 fine per violation and a determinate prison sentence of 15 years. Doctors also would lose their licenses and permits and be permanently barred from conducting business in Puerto Rico. 'Minors, having not yet reached the necessary emotional, cognitive, and physical maturity, are particularly vulnerable to making decisions that can have irreversible consequences,' reads the law, set to take effect in October. 'Therefore, it is the State's duty to ensure their comprehensive well-being.' Under Puerto Rican law, the age of majority, or legal adulthood, begins at 21, making the island's ban on gender-affirming care for minors one of the most restrictive of any U.S. state or territory. Roughly half the nation has adopted laws since 2021 that limit access to prescription medications, such as hormones and puberty blockers, and gender-affirming surgical procedures, typically for children and teens under 18. Laws passed in Alabama and Nebraska restrict care up to 19 years old, similar to an executive order signed by President Trump in January that aims to end federal support for gender-affirming care for young people. In June, the Supreme Court dealt a victory to supporters of such laws, upholding Tennessee's ban on transition-related care for minors and ruling that the state's law, contrary to the arguments of transgender civil rights advocates, does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status. Major professional medical organizations criticized the court's decision, maintaining that gender-affirming health care for both transgender adults and minors is medically necessary and can be lifesaving. Conservative Puerto Rican officials applauded González's approval of legislation restricting care, which also prohibits the use of public funds for transgender health care for minors. 'The protection of our children and the well-being of all minors is fundamental and non-negotiable!' Puerto Rican Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, the bill's author, said Thursday on social media in a statement thanking González and the territory's Legislature for approving the measure. Schatz is affiliated with the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico and the Republican Party. 'Now no minor will be able to be subjected to treatment for alleged 'sex change,'' Sen. Joanne Rodríguez Veve, a member of the Proyecto Dignidad Party, wrote on Facebook. She added in an accompanying video, 'This is great news for Puerto Rico!' Organizations including the Puerto Rico Psychological Association, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Puerto Rican Association of Professional Counseling and the Puerto Rico Bar Association had encouraged González to veto the bill. In a statement on Thursday, Puerto Rico's LGBTQ+ Federation said it would challenge the new law in court. 'Let there be no doubt: We will go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the governor's cruel and inhumane signing of a law that criminalizes health professionals for caring for trans minors,' said Justin Jesús Santiago, the federation's co-director. 'What a shame!' Pedro Julio Serrano, the federation's president, said Thursday. 'With her actions, Jennif[f]er González declares herself the most anti-equity governor in history.'
