Highway 37 project in North Bay could get environmental exception to proceed
The 10-mile stretch of Highway 37 between Mare Island in Solano County and Sears Point in Sonoma County is considered one of the most problematic roadways in the state of California.
About the only thing that moves slower than the traffic on Highway 37 is the progress to correct the problem.
But now it looks like the state is prepared to suspend some of its own regulations in order to get that job done.
"We know that there's this 10-mile stretch between Sears Point and Mare Island that is an absolute bottle neck," said Assemblymember Lori Wilson. "And it doesn't have to be commute hours. This is kind of like an all-day thing. There's a small window to get through there unscathed."
As an Assembly member from Solano County, Wilson is well aware of the gridlock on Highway 37. And so are her constituents. So, she spoke at a committee hearing last week to make sure that her fellow legislators understood, as well.
"It is so unreliable that North Bay transit operators won't even run buses on the corridor because it would be impossible to stick to a regular schedule," she told members of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.
The state has plans to widen Highway 37 to two lanes each way, and they've been talking about it for decades, held up mainly by a lack of funding.
But something else is standing in the way — the animals that live in the salt marshes on either side of the roadway. Some of them have protected status, specifically the salt marsh harvest mouse, the California clapper rail, its cousin the California black rail and the white-tailed kite.
The law said no construction can be done nearby during critical periods in their life cycles, and that would have a profound impact on the road project.
"Based on their life cycles, it would reduce construction time period to basically about three months out of a 12-month year," said Wilson. "Which you can imagine if you could only build three months out of a 12 month year, how long that project would take."
So, Wilson has introduced Assembly Bill 697 which would exempt the Highway 37 project with what's known as an "incidental take" permit. Construction crews would still have to take precautions to protect the wildlife, but the state won't automatically assume that something terrible will happen.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission said that's vital for the project to happen at all.
"The way the law is written now," said MTC spokesperson John Goodwin, " because there is the possibility of harm being done to these animals, work cannot take place. This would allow work to take place in this location."
It seems like common sense, but that hasn't always been the hallmark of California law. Now, lots of regulations, from housing rules to environmental laws to species protection are being reconsidered. And Wilson may be one of the new species of Democrat legislators, willing to take a second look at a law's practical value.
"We needed to strive to have these aspirational goals, but at the same time, you have to be balanced," she said. "So, you can't just swing the pendulum the whole other way and not care about people. Because the whole point of doing this work is to support people."
AB 697 passed the committee with a unanimous vote. The current Highway 37 project is expected to cost about half a billion dollars, and Goodwin said, while there are still plenty of funding issues to work out, if all goes well, it's possible construction could begin sometime in 2027.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Got the Fight He Wanted. Did It Turn Out the Way He Expected?
Immigration raids and mass detentions. Federal forces deployed to an American city. Supported by On June 7, Cruz was walking to buy tamales with her sister in San Bernardino, Calif., when she saw a truck full of landscapers being detained by what appeared to be law-enforcement officers in unmarked uniforms. Cruz, a 28-year-old nurse's assistant, is a first-generation Mexican American who was born in California, but her husband is an undocumented immigrant who worked on a similar landscaping crew. (She asked to be identified by only her last name for her family's safety.) When the Trump administration's raids targeting undocumented immigrants reached the city, word of the arrests spread quickly, but Cruz had not taken the news too seriously until she saw one for herself. The next week, on the morning of June 13, her husband called to say he'd been working on Waterman Avenue when a truck full of federal agents pulled up. They appeared to be from Homeland Security Investigations, one of the many federal agencies now scouring Southern California for undocumented immigrants. When an officer asked him if he had a visa, he told the truth. Minutes later, he was in the back of a government vehicle, bound for the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal facility, in Los Angeles. For nearly a week, such raids had spurred small protests in several cities in the region. Federal agents fired less-lethal munitions at protesters; shortly after, President Trump, casting images of the clashes as evidence of citywide anarchy wrought by undocumented immigrants and their defenders, announced that he was federalizing control of the California National Guard and deploying it to address 'lawlessness.' After protests gave way to rioting on the blocks around the detention center on the night of Sunday, June 8, he announced he was deploying U.S. Marines. By the morning after the arrest of Cruz's husband, a small number of Marines — deployed to an American state over the public opposition of its elected government — stood around the loading dock of the detention center with M27 rifles and riot shields. They stood alongside soldiers from the California National Guard and officers whose vest patches said 'POLICE — DHS,' denoting their affiliation with the Department of Homeland Security. Since the George Floyd demonstrations of 2020, Trump had vocally supported deploying the military to quell violent protests on American streets — a move he had flinched at doing at the time but now was at last making. It was a natural conclusion of the story Trump told on the campaign trail last year about what had happened to America — what his enemies had done to America — and what he would do, if elected again, to restore it. 'Order will be restored,' Trump wrote, 'the Illegals will be expelled, and Los Angeles will be set free.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals panel scrutinizes judge's block on Trump National Guard deployment
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got a frosty reception at a federal appeals court Tuesday afternoon as it scrutinized a lower judge's ruling blocking President Trump's federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared inclined to let Trump maintain control of the guardsmen, weighing the scope of the president's discretion in times of conflict and whether the courts have the authority to intervene at all. The judges seemed to believe Supreme Court precedent provides the president with broad authority to declare emergencies that can trigger the ability for him to deploy the troops. 'Those are maybe good arguments for the Supreme Court to reconsider those cases,' Judge Eric Miller, one of Trump appointees on the panel, told California's lawyer. 'But they've told us repeatedly that when there is a case that is directly applicable to an issue, even if we think it's been undercut by later developments…we're supposed to follow the applicable case and leave it to them to overrule it,' Miller added. The judges repeatedly stressed an 1827 Supreme Court decision, Martin v. Mott, that gives the president exclusive authority to decide whether an exigency justifying the use of military power has arisen. Samuel Harbourt, California's attorney, insisted 'it was a very different case.' 'If we were writing on a blank slate, I would tend to agree with you,' Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Obama, told him. 'But the problem that I see for you is that Mott seem to be dealing with very similar phrasing about whenever there is an invasion, then the President has discretion, and it seemingly rejected the exact argument that you're making.' Judge Mark Bennett, the other Trump appointee, questioned whether the courts could intervene in the Los Angeles deployment even if there was some limited role for judicial review. 'With the facts here and the language in Martin v. Mott, how can that test be met here?' he asked. Trump deployed the National Guard over a week ago as protests erupted in Los Angeles over the administration's immigration raids, devolving at times into violence. He cited a statute that allows the guard to be federalized when there is a rebellion or when the president can't execute federal law with regular forces. Tuesday's arguments followed a district judge's order directing Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Newsom. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, called Trump's takeover illegal and said it exceeded the scope of the statute. The Justice Department appealed the ruling within minutes of its release, and the 9th Circuit panel granted the government's request to temporarily halt the ruling as its request for a longer pause is considered. Brett Shumate, who represented the government at Tuesday's arguments, said Breyer 'improperly second-guessed' Trump's judgment about the need to call up the guard, interfering with his commander-in-chief powers. 'It upends the military chain of command. It gives state governors veto power over the President's military orders. It puts article three judges on a collision course with the commander in chief. And it endangers lives,' Shumate said. California also argues that regardless of whether the triggering conditions were met, Trump did not follow the statute's mandate to issue his order 'through' the state's governor. California says that requires Newsom to consent, which he did not. But at least some of the judges appeared skeptical of that argument, too. 'It's a very roundabout way, I mean, of imposing a consultation requirement,' said Miller. The appeals court could now rule at any time. Before adjourning, the panel noted Breyer is moving quickly to a Friday hearing on whether to grant a longer injunction. His ruling would moot the current appeal. And if the administration loses, they asked for the deployment to remain intact until they have an opportunity to file an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court. Updated on June 18 at 5:58 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard deployed, for now
A federal appeals court panel late Thursday allowed President Trump to keep the National Guard deployed in Los Angeles, for now. The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously extended its pause of a judge's order finding Trump's deployment illegal and forcing him to return control of the troops to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote in its unsigned, 38-page decision. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Trump has sent in thousands of National Guard troops to protect immigration officers in the wake of recent protests in Los Angeles, which at times have devolved into violence. The move quickly sparked a lawsuit from Newsom and the state's attorney general. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who issued last week's decision invalidating the deployment, is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer is an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In deploying the troops, Trump cited a statute that allows him to federalize the National Guard whenever there is a rebellion or when he cannot execute federal laws with regular forces. The appeals panel said Thursday it agreed the latter trigger was likely met, so it didn't need to reach the question of whether there was a rebellion. 'Plaintiffs' own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. According to the declarations submitted by Defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws,' the opinion reads. The three-judge appeals panel comprised two Trump-nominated judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Biden. The 9th Circuit also rejected Newsom's argument Trump failed a statutory requirement to issue his deployment order 'through' the governor. Newsom contended it established a requirement that he consent, but the appeals panel said notifying the adjutant general of the California National Guard was likely sufficient. The panel stressed the statute 'does not give governors any veto power over the President's federalization decision.' 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The president is not a king and not above the law,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he continued. Updated June 20 at 8:30 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
