A.1435 (Bradley, et al.)

S.5182 (Morahan, et al.)

Summary

This bill restores the original legislative intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), by allowing groups or individuals to challenge a SEQRA decision if they can demonstrate that they will suffer injury from the environmental impact of a proposed project, without having to show that the harm they will suffer is different from that suffered by the public at large.

Explanation
This bill would remove an anomalous barrier to the enforcement of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by opening the courtroom doors to those bringing a legitimate claim of an injury that is within the zone of interests of the SEQRA statute.

SEQRA, passed in 1975, sets out rules for environmental analysis when a government entity undertakes, approves or funds a project that might have a significant impact on the environment. While the statute provided no government enforcement mechanism, it did allow for citizens affected by a project to petition the courts to review an agency’s compliance with environmental review requirements.

In recent years, enforcement of SEQRA has been severely constrained by the narrowing of the standing test imposed by the courts. According to a 1991 Court of Appeals decision, for a petitioner to be granted standing to challenge a SEQRA determination, the petitioner must not only show injury, but that the injury is different from that experienced by the community at large. The Court thus established a so-called special harm test for standing – a difficult, if not impossible burden to meet. The Court decision in question addressed a plastics industry group challenging a Suffolk County ordinance against the use of plastic tableware in certain situations and, although the petitioner described an environmental injury in its challenge, it was clear that the purpose of the suit had more to do with industry profits. It is widely believed by judicial scholars that the Court did not intend to narrow the rules of standing to the extent it has in cases of real environmental injury. Contrary to the Court’s explicit wishes, there are now instances in which there is no group or individual that would have standing, even in the face of extreme environmental harm, if everyone who would be affected will experience the same type of harm.  Moreover, with the narrowing of standing, there is little or no enforcement of SEQRA, making the state’s much heralded environmental review statute essentially toothless.

This bill would correct this situation by reinstating the standing test – the injury in fact/zone of interests test – the legislature had envisioned when the SEQRA statute was enacted in 1975.

Environmental Advocates of New York strongly supports this bill.