ecovote.org > no on proposition 90 > environmental impact > fish & game

Prop. 90 Threatens Fishing and Hunting in California

Fishing and hunting are long-established sports in California. These sports depend upon measured steps to preserve and ensure the viability of our natural habitats and ecosystems. That’s why thousands of hunters and fisherman are also conservationists who work to preserve and protect habitat that is critical to species survival. Proposition 90 on California’s November ballot threatens conservation efforts and is a direct assault on fishing and hunting in California.

Proponents are trying to sell Prop. 90 as eminent domain reform, but in it they have hidden provisions that would effectively eliminate our ability to pass or enforce laws that protect habitat, ensure adequate water supplies and preserve other natural resources. That’s because these provisions allow virtually anyone to sue claiming a new law or regulation has impacted the value of their property or business—no matter how far-fetched the claim. Taxpayers pay, or state and local governments would be unable to enforce even the most basic protections.

If Prop. 90 were to pass:

Wetlands would be threatened. Compensation requirements would be triggered whenever development on or around wetlands was restricted by local or state agencies. If the agency is unwilling or unable to pay these costs, they would be forced to allow development near sensitive wetlands. Efforts to persuade local governments to adopt buffer zones around key wetlands would be stopped.
Acquiring land for refuges and open space would become cost-prohibitive. Prop. 90 requires new levels of inflated payouts to property owners whenever land or conservation easements are acquired. This could make conservation efforts so prohibitively expensive that many will simply not be done.
Funds for refuge protections included in Prop. 84, also on this November’s ballot, would be impacted by Prop. 90. Projects will end up costing much more, and far less will get done.
Water supply and water quality would be at risk. If voters or state or local governments pass laws to maintain or improve water supply or quality for species protection, such as waterfowl, salmon, delta fish, plants, or for maintaining the beauty of natural treasures like Lake Tahoe, Prop. 90 would require the state make huge payments to prevent the spoiling of our waterways. If agencies can’t afford the payments, they could be left with no choice but to allow the harmful action.
Sprawl would be much harder to stop. If voters or a local government takes steps to limit the size of a development, and the developer claims the property could hold more development, Prop. 90 allows the developer to force taxpayers to pay for the value of the houses he wasn’t allowed to build. Taxpayers would be on the hook for the value of the property at the denser level, even though the community could not handle or did not want such a development. Agricultural lands would be more threatened by development that they are now.
New CEQA mitigation to protect wildlife and natural resources would be impacted. Any new requirements for CEQA mitigations would trigger payments under Prop. 90, making those requirements much more costly to enact.
Compliance with federal law could trigger liability. Proposition 90 is so poorly drafted that there is no exception from liability for government actions to comply with federal mandates. Agencies that are obligated to comply, for example, with the federal Endangered Species Act or the federal Clean Water Act would still be liable to property owners who claimed they had suffered a loss.

Prop. 90 Threatens Fishing and Hunting in California

If Prop. 90 were to pass:

Read more:

Fact Sheets

Tell a Friend!