Latest news with #Deehan
Axios
4 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Left and right make strange bedfellows when it comes to Beacon Hill transparency
Deehan here, back with Spill of the Hill, my column unraveling Massachusetts politics. Far-left Democratic activists who want to transform the way Beacon Hill does business can't get the time of day at the State House, so they're looking to team up with another constituency that wants to end the status quo at the capitol — the MassGOP. Why it matters: Nothing brings the two groups of outsiders together as much as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, which, they say, has opposed or stalled efforts to make lawmaking more accountable. What they're saying: "You're seeing groups from both the far left and the far right kind of come together. The common denominator is a lack of transparency and accountability," MassGOP chairwoman Amy Carnevale told Axios. Driving the news: The Coalition to Reform Our Legislature couldn't get lawmakers to hold a public hearing on its bills to decentralize salary perks for House and Senate members and to create an independent fiscal impact bureau, so it booked a room at a church across the street for its own "hearing." "There have been at least two decades, maybe three, of decreasing democracy in the institution across the street, and that's a tragedy," former Lexington Rep. Jay Kaufman said. The coalition's goal is to reduce the control leadership has over members and make it easier to see the effects of bills without relying on interest groups to make projections. Coalition executive director Scotia Hille said the group couldn't find a single legislator willing to file either of the bills, something that is usually done without opposition. Between the lines: Lawmakers won't touch the reform effort because they, for the most part, like things the way they are on the hill. After all, nearly every Democrat voted to reinstall Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka as leaders this year. It's hard to blame them since there's little public outcry over how the General Court conducts itself. About 10% of incumbents faced primaries last year. 20% of districts had competition from both Democrats and the GOP, the lowest rate in the country. What's next: Electeds don't seem to care much for the proposed reforms. Neither do the voters who consistently put them in office. Reality check: Lawmakers are still fighting to stop the auditor's ballot question to let her oversee some of their spending.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Federal judge tasks Port of Los Angeles with cleaning up contaminated water
The Port of Los Angeles will need to clean up widespread water contamination in the city's harbor by shoring up sewage treatment operations, according to a settlement approved by a federal judge. The settlement was the result of a lawsuit filed by the organization Environment California last summer accusing the port of violating the Clean Water Act by unleashing toxic pollutants into the San Pedro Bay. The group maintained that the port had conducted more than 2,000 illegal wastewater discharges in the previous five years alone — release that routine surpassed limits on fecal bacteria, copper and other contaminants. 'Californians count on having a clean, vibrant coastline, but that's not compatible with contaminated effluent that can lap up on our world-renowned shores,' Laura Deehan, Environment California's state director, said in a statement on Wednesday. The settlement approved on Tuesday tasks the port with improving its management and treatment of stormwater and groundwater, through provisions requiring the elimination of fecal bacteria from the groundwater. The document also calls for the redirection of groundwater contaminated with toxic pollutants to the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant, so that the water can be cleaned for beneficial reuse. Lewis DeHope, counsel for Environment California and a staff attorney for the National Environmental Law Center, explained that the agreement 'promises to finally put an end to the Port's long-standing violations that have plagued the harbor for years.' 'Bacteria and copper are out; effective treatment is in,' DeHope said. Also included in the settlement are specific metrics to assess the port's performance, with compliance failures resulting in automatic fines. The port also needs to pay $1.3 million to the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment to finance restoration projects in the Los Angeles Harbor and the San Pedro Bay. Most of those funds will be allocated to a multi-year initiative to remove trash from the area, according to the settlement. 'This settlement has a double benefit for the harbor,' Deehan said, noting that the trash removal will 'go a long way toward ensuring cleaner, better days in the harbor's future.' The judge also approved a $130,000 civil penalty, which the port must pay to the U.S. Treasury. 'This settlement is a great step toward a cleaner, safer San Pedro Bay,' Deehan added. 'It demonstrates the vital role that citizen lawsuits play in the enforcement of our federal environmental laws.' In response to the agreement, a spokesperson for the Port of Los Angeles declined to provide comment 'beyond what's in the settlement.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
11-06-2025
- General
- The Hill
Federal judge tasks Port of Los Angeles with cleaning up contaminated water
The Port of Los Angeles will need to clean up widespread water contamination in the city's harbor by shoring up sewage treatment operations, according to a settlement approved by a federal judge. The settlement was the result of a lawsuit filed by the organization Environment California last summer accusing the port of violating the Clean Water Act by unleashing toxic pollutants into the San Pedro Bay. The group maintained that the port had conducted more than 2,000 illegal wastewater discharges in the previous five years alone — release that routine surpassed limits on fecal bacteria, copper and other contaminants. 'Californians count on having a clean, vibrant coastline, but that's not compatible with contaminated effluent that can lap up on our world-renowned shores,' Laura Deehan, Environment California's state director, said in a statement on Wednesday. The settlement approved on Tuesday tasks the port with improving its management and treatment of stormwater and groundwater, through provisions requiring the elimination of fecal bacteria from the groundwater. The document also calls for the redirection of groundwater contaminated with toxic pollutants to the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant, so that the water can be cleaned for beneficial reuse. Lewis DeHope, counsel for Environment California and a staff attorney for the National Environmental Law Center, explained that the agreement 'promises to finally put an end to the Port's long-standing violations that have plagued the harbor for years.' 'Bacteria and copper are out; effective treatment is in,' DeHope said. Also included in the settlement are specific metrics to assess the port's performance, with compliance failures resulting in automatic fines. The port also needs to pay $1.3 million to the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment to finance restoration projects in the Los Angeles Harbor and the San Pedro Bay. Most of those funds will be allocated to a multi-year initiative to remove trash from the area, according to the settlement. 'This settlement has a double benefit for the harbor,' Deehan said, noting that the trash removal will 'go a long way toward ensuring cleaner, better days in the harbor's future.' The judge also approved a $130,000 civil penalty, which the port must pay to the U.S. Treasury. 'This settlement is a great step toward a cleaner, safer San Pedro Bay,' Deehan added. 'It demonstrates the vital role that citizen lawsuits play in the enforcement of our federal environmental laws.' In response to the agreement, a spokesperson for the Port of Los Angeles declined to provide comment 'beyond what's in the settlement.'
Axios
27-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
Top Mass. Democrats face off on liquor, school reform
Deehan here, back with Spill of the Hill, my column unraveling Massachusetts politics. Tensions are high between House and Senate Democrats on Beacon Hill as their leaders clash on changes to local liquor licensing, vocational school reforms and health care protections. Why it matters: With 35 days until the new fiscal year begins, House and Senate negotiators are trying to reconcile significant differences between their budget proposals. The big picture: Both chambers approved spending roughly 6% more this year. Though they're ostensibly part of the same political party, Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ron Mariano diverge on several big issues that will require compromise. What we're watching: The Senate wants to end the nearly century-old population-based cap system for local liquor licenses and let cities set their own limits. House leaders have historically opposed a change. The two chambers are also at odds over how to end broker fees on apartment rentals. The House wants to pause new changes to vocational school admissions. The Senate plan includes prescription drug price caps and more funding to protect hospitals from closing. How it works: Budget negotiations are top-down affairs, with the Ways and Means committee chairs — Rep. Aaron Michlewitz and Sen. Michael Rodrigues — making offers, trading proposals and protecting their bosses' priorities. Between the lines: Aside from the chaos before the end of the lawmaking session, budget season is the pinnacle of horse-trade politicking in this one-party state. Whatever compromises are hashed out will almost certainly become law. Rank-and-file lawmakers don't go against leadership. The Republican minorities in the House and Senate have little to no influence on the outcome.
Axios
07-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
Dems don't see eye-to-eye on lowering rental costs, MBTA bailout
Deehan here, back with Spill of the Hill, my column unraveling Massachusetts politics. As top lawmakers craft the state's spending plans for the next fiscal year, lines aren't being drawn between parties, but among the Democrats that lead the one-party state. Why it matters: The true political conflict in Massachusetts is House Democrats vs. Senate Democrats. They rarely disagree on what to do. How to do it and how much to spend are the tricky parts. And there's a lot riding on which chamber's priorities win out when it comes to funding for the MBTA and how much renters have to pay to move into an apartment. Zoom in: There's a big divide on how much funding to give to the T as it posts big wins on repairs and customer satisfaction but struggles to keep its spending under control. The Senate proposes $370 million for the T. That's $420 million less than what the House approved. The difference is because the Senate wants to split revenues from the new 4% income surtax evenly between transportation and education investments. The House favors pouring more into the MBTA as the agency's finances spiral. Another issue where Democrats agree but still need to nail down the details is in eliminating real estate broker fees, the additional up-front month's rent paid at the start of a lease. Gov. Maura Healey and Democratic leaders generally support shifting fees from renters to landlords, but the devil is in the details. The Senate wants the fees to be paid by whoever hires the broker. The House laid out a plan where whoever contacts a broker first is on the hook. The differences between "hiring" and "contacting" could look like splitting hairs, but some housing advocates are worried renters could still get slammed by fees if they respond to a broker's listing. The big picture: Lawmakers got a bit of breathing room Monday when April tax collections came in more than $1 billion over expectations. Yes, but: Since most of the bonus money came from the extra 4% on incomes over $1 million, it's restricted to education or transportation spending. The state couldn't use it to bail out the MassHealth system if there are cuts to federal Medicaid, for instance.
