The New York constitution was missing a statement that protects the state’s Environment, and most importantly, clean air and clean water. On November 2nd of this year, a vote was cast on the proposal to “add a right to clean water, clean air, and a healthful environment to the New York Constitution’s Bill of Rights,” (Ballotpedia, 2021). The legislation passed with not much backlash and New York State will now join six other states that have also made this leap. (Gutierrez, 2021) Publicly, the idea had a lot of support, and the only backlash was from Republican political figures. The ironic part about the backlash is that many of these Republican lawmakers work inside the Adirondack Park, the most serene and natural piece of the state. (Craig, 2021) While this amendment may not have a direct impact on the Adirondacks, it is a step in the right direction for the state and now that the law has been passed it makes it easier to pass future environmental policy legislation, which would have an effect on the Park.
On November 2nd, the amendment was put into effect immediately after the overwhelming majority voted for it. (Gutierrez, 2021) How does this amendment constitute change? The biggest impact the amendment has is the regulations that are put on new developments and the emissions from large factories and plants. The executive director of Environmental Advocates, Peter Iwanowicz, says that the amendment “could help prevent pollution and environmental damage before it happens,” (De Socio, 2021). The law for clean air and clean water promotes human health and works to prevent climate change and protect the land. It generally would be beneficial to all citizens and has been successful in other states where it has been implemented. So who was against the proposal?
The backlash came from the more conservative legislature seen in upstate New York. According to Mike De Socio of the Adirondack Explorer, “some Republican lawmakers cited concerns that the amendment would lead to a flood of litigation” (De Socio, 2021). The argument coming from these lawmakers does have some validity to it. One piece of their argument is that the definitions of what is clean in the amendment are quite ‘loose’ (Craig, 2021). Loose legislation leads to a higher frequency of lawsuits, which makes it hard to get anything done in the state.
It is important to see both sides of the argument on amendments such as this because of factors that are not obvious like the word clean having a loose definition, resulting in a higher frequency of lawsuits. This clean air and water law was certainly worth the trouble for New York State and will help out a lot in the future when it is time for further environmental regulations within the Adirondacks. Since the proposal passed with an overwhelming majority, it can be assumed that N.Y. citizens support environmental policy and will work to protect their state’s 6 million acre park.
Literature Cited
BallotPedia. (2021). New York Proposal 2, Environmental Rights Amendment (2021). https://ballotpedia.org/New_York_Proposal_2,Environmental_Rights_Amendment(2021)
Craig, G. (January 2021). Adirondack lawmakers wary of adding clean air and water to state bill of rights. Adirondack Explorer. https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/adirondack-lawmakers-wary-of-adding-clean-air-and-water-to-state-bill-of-rights
De Socio, M. (September 2021). On the ballot this fall: Adding clean air and water to state bill of rights. Adirondack Explorer. https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/green-amendment-before-voters
Gutiérrez, Nydia. (November 3, 2021). Environmental Rights Amendment Passes In New York. Earth Justice. https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2021/environmental-rights-amendment-passes-in-new-york
Great job, Russell. I find it very useful that you presented both sides of the argument. Not only that, you acknowledged that it is necessary to understand both sides. I find your title very interesting and attention grabbing as it provides some humor yet presents the issue with seriousness.
Great blog, Russell! I was surprised to find out that New York Constitution’s Bill of Rights was missing such a crucial legislation for environmental conservation, considering most regions in the world already have a similar legislation in place. I do agree with you on the statement that both positive and negative sides should be understood in any constitutional law amendments. It is often because of vague definitions, “clean” in this case, that institutions find loop holes to continue deteriorate the environment.
Russell, I’m glad to read reasons behind for and against of the new legislation! Clean water and air are very significant elements around us, while it’s difficult to protect them and ensure they are sustainable, so certain policies are necessary. It’s very interesting to see that since the definition of “clean” is too loose, it may lead to ineffectiveness and higher frequency of lawsuits. I guess the government should make some efforts quantifying and clarifying what “clean” exactly means in order to give the legislation more sense.