|
ACC Commission
Overall Scorecard
Incumbent
Voting Record
Questionnaire
+ Answers:
District 2:
Sims
Smith
District
4:
Kinman
Tillery
District
6:
Jordan
Hadden
Beal
District
8:
McCarter
Nelson
Super
District 10:
Kilpatrick
Dodson
Robinson
State Senate Dist. 46
Overall Scorecard
Incumbent Voting
Record
(courtesy Georgia Conservation Voters)
Questionnaire + Answers
State House Dist. 115
Overall Scorecard
Questionnaire + Answers
|
Incumbent Voting
Record - State Senate
courtesy of Georgia
Conservation Voters
| Issue |
GCV
position |
Kemp |
| SB
86: Development Rights. Senate Bill 86, which won almost unanimous
passage, was drawn up to encourage the preservation of environmentally
sensitive areas and open lands. The bill relied on a legal device
known as a “transferable development right ” that lets local
governments curb pressures to develop certain properties by allowing
owners to sell their development rights for land to landholders in
different, less sensitive locations.SB 86 streamlines the process
of preserving greenspace by removing the requirement that each transfer
be approved by a vote of a local government.SB 86 maintains public
involvement and input for creating TDR ordinances that establish sending
and receiving areas within a county. The bill passed the Senate 48-2.
YES was the pro-conservation vote. |
Y |
Y |
| SB
127: Transportation Funding. Written at first as a measure to
change the formula for distributing transportation funds among Georgia
congressional districts, Senate Bill 127 gained greater environmental
significance after two successful floor amendments. The first floor
amendment, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Clay, opened the way to funding
transportation projects aside from highways, including rail projects
and intermodal projects, under the bill’s new formula. The amendment
passed narrowly by 26-23. YES was the pro-conservation vote on the
Clay Amendment. The second amendment, brought to the floor by Sen.
Charlie Tanksley, added the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Association
(MARTA) to the list of potential funding recipients. This measure
passed by a similarly small margin of 27-23. YES was the pro-conservation
vote on the Tanksley Amendment. The bill passed 37-13. On the final
version of the bill, a YES was the pro-conservation vote. |
|
|
| Clay
amendment to SB 127 |
Y |
N |
| Tanksley
amendment to SB 127 |
Y |
N |
| Final
SB 127 |
Y |
Y |
| SB
172: Restraint of Environmental Regulation. An especially pernicious
piece of legislation, Senate Bill 172 would have forced the Board
of the Department of Natural Resources to write a so-called “statement
of rationale” — including a detailed cost-benefit analysis
— before adopting regulations under the state’s premiere
environmental laws, including bills covering hazardous waste sites,
vehicle emissions, asbestos, and radiation control. Sen. Steve Thompson
floated an amendment that would have empowered senior officials at
the Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection
Division to limit the scope of any “statement of rationale”
— a step that would have the incidental effect of limiting grounds
for possible court challenges of new regulations. The amendment failed
by a vote of 21-32. YES was the pro-conservation vote on the Thompson
Amendment. The bill failed, with 42 votes against versus only 11 in
favor. On the final version of Senate Bill 172, a NO is the pro-conservation
vote. |
|
|
| Thompson
amendment SB 172 |
Y |
N |
| Final
SB 172 |
N |
Y |
| HB
314: Greenspace Acquisition Funds. Unfortunately, greenspace funding
came under attack in 2003. All funds to purchase greenspace by the
counties were removed from the state’s budget for 2003 and 2004.
In addition, HB 314 — the Georgia greenspace trust fund bill
— directed all interest earned on the trust fund to the state’s
general fund. The version adopted by the House did not place a limit
on the duration of the funds diversion; in the Senate, a floor amendment
set the arrangement to lapse in July 2004. The Senate passed that
amendment by a 42-11 vote. YES is the pro-conservation vote on this
amendment. |
Y |
N |
| SB
460: Stream Buffer Protection. Senate Bill 460, by Sen. Casey
Cagle, would have created a general variance for streams with annual
average flow under 25 gallons a minute. A general variance (GV) is
granted not by EPD but by a local issuing authority, and is automatically
allowed when stream criteria are met. SB 460 would have seriously
jeopardized the stability of all waters downstream from streams in
which a GV was granted. Sen. Sam Zamarripa ’s amendment would
have removed the word “general” from the wording of the
bill, reverting power to grant the variances in question back to EPD
and ensuring that the process would not be automatic. The amendment
first passed 28-27, and then failed 27-28 after reconsideration. YES
was the pro-conservation vote each time for the Zamarripa Amendment
(Votes 8 and 9). Sen. Steve Thompson ’s amendment made the criteria
required to receive a general variance more stringent, in an attempt
to ensure that water quality would be protected downstream. The amendment
passed 29-27. YES was the pro-conservation vote on the Thompson Amendment
(Vote 10). The bill passed — 21 opposed it, while 35 voted in
favor. NO was the pro-conservation vote. |
|
|
| Zamarripa
amendment 1 SB 460 |
Y |
N |
| Zamarripa
amendment 2 SB 460 |
Y |
N |
| Thompson
amendment SB 460 |
Y |
Y |
| Final
SB460 |
N |
Y |
| SB
568: Grease Dumping Ban Enforcement. Illegal dumping of grease
hurts taxpayers, businesses, and individuals who are forced to pick
up the bill for expensive cleanups, and is the number one cause of
sewer blockages in the state. SB 568 creates enforcement tools to
curtail unscrupulous waste haulers who dump grease illegally. The
bill passed the Senate 53-0. YES was the pro-conservation vote. |
Y |
Y |
| SB
361:Cost/Benefit Analysis. Senate Bill 361, by Sen. Ross Tolleson,
would have required that any state agency perform cost-benefit analyses,
four-year reviews, and other scientific research on any rule or regulation
that would affect small businesses (defined as any business with less
than 50 employees and taking in less than $4 million a year). These
requirements would put inappropriate burdens of cost and labor on
state regulatory agencies, and would eventually result in a reduction
of safety, environmental, and consumer protections offered by the
state. Twelve senators stood against the bill, but with 42 votes in
its favor, the measure passed. NO was the pro-conservation vote. |
N |
Y |
|
Total
votes in agreement
|
4 |
|
Total
possible votes in agreeent
|
13 |
|
Percentage
of agreement (numerical score)
|
31% |
|
