AJR 3: A Question Of Amending The Nevada Constitution

By Doug Busselman | NFB Executive Vice President

(Editor’s Note: From a historical perspective it is interesting to note that the Nevada Constitution was framed by a convention of delegates chosen by the people. This convention met in Carson City on July 4th, 1864 and adjourned on July 28, 1864. On the first Wednesday in September in 1864 the Constitution was approved by the vote of the people of the Territory of Nevada.)

Should each person have an “inherent, inalienable, indefeasible and selfexecuting right” to a clean, healthy environment, including pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems and a stable climate, guaranteed by their State Constitution?

Beyond the quality of the environmental considerations listed above, Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR 3) also believes that each person (and all future generations) should have the “preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities of the environment.”

If passed in the 2023 and 2025 Nevada Legislature would then, if adopted by Nevada voters in the 2026 election (or whatever general election would take place after the 2025 Legislature), the concepts embodied in AJR 3 would become Section 25 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. If passed and added to the Nevada State Constitution, the State of Nevada, including each branch, agency and political subdivision, would serve as “trustee of these resources.” The State would be responsible for conserving, protecting and maintaining these resources for the benefit of all people.

AJR 3 was presented to the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections by the primary sponsor of the proposal, Assemblywoman Sarah Peters of Reno.

During the hearing there were no opponents of the proposal expressing their opposition to a clean, healthy environment. No one spoke against pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems or even against a “stable climate.”

There were full lists of those in support of AJR 3 and those in opposition to AJR 3. It should be noted that under the methods which now constitute public engagement in the Nevada Legislative process…those presenting the legislative proposal get all the time that they wish to make their case – then 30 minutes are provided for those speaking in support (with a limit per-person of two minutes to make their statement of persuasion); then 30 minutes are provided for those speaking in opposition (again with the two-minute cap); and then, 30 minutes for those who might be classified as neutral (usually a state agency who say they aren’t in support or opposition, but have information relative to the item being considered).

On a positive side, at least the Legislators in charge of the 82nd Legislative Session have granted Nevada Citizens the opportunity to be in the Legislative Building. People can weigh in with their two-minute time by being in person, by virtual testimony (normally from Las Vegas, but also sometimes from Elko) or by calling in with their phones and speaking when called on.

During the March 9th hearing on AJR 3, Assemblywoman Peters indicated that she had a conceptual amendment to remove Subsection 4 of the proposal. This deletion proposes to remove…

“The State shall take no action that would cause unreasonable degradation, diminution or depletion of the environment, through direct state action, or inaction, or through the actions of others.”

This move could be perceived to make what has been labelled as “the Green Amendment” slightly less impossible to carry out, but not necessarily a worthwhile addition to the Nevada Constitution.

One of the states, who have added the “Green Amendment” to their State Constitution, is Montana. It was originally made part of the Pennsylvania in 1971 and has since been added to the New York State Constitution

Following the hearing we checked in with our Montana Farm Bureau colleagues to find out how their “Green Amendment” has been working for them. It was added to their Constitution in 1972 when a Constitutional Convention was held to spruce up their State Constitution.

The response we got back in answer to inquiry was, “…avoid a similar provision at all costs.” She added that the implementation of the amendment has been especially hard on industries like logging, oil and gas. Based on newspaper accounts that were also provided the Green Amendment has been an effective tool for activists who specialize in using the court systems to advance their causes.

The March 24, 2022 article from the Montana Free Press, entitled “How the Montana Constitution shapes the state’s environmental landscape” shared a number of legal accounts including the Montana’s Supreme Court ruling in 1999 which established the precedent that the judicial branch need not wait for an environmental harm to occur before acting to prevent it. This was part of their ruling on the “Montana Environmental Law Center v. the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.”

The article also went into an in depth set of court rulings where the public’s right to gain access to streams and other water ways have disseminated property rights protections for landowners who have property which abuts the water courses that the public is entitled to access.

“We don’t believe this proposal belongs in the Constitution,” Nevada Farm Bureau’s testimony stated. “We can handle what we need to through laws that are targeted to address problems, as well as regulations that are put forward.

The organization’s position on AJR 3 is also focused on the concerns that such a Constitutional Amendment would have on impacting private property rights and other rights the people have.

Give the experience and track record of how activist have used the courts to force their agenda of not allowing the use of renewable resources in productive ways, it is not a stretch of the imagination to understand how AJR 3 – “the Green Amendment” will become the weapon of choice for shutting down extractive industries and also those like agriculture who depend on renewable resource use.

As one contemplates all the ramifications of using the Nevada Constitution to require that every person’s (present and all future generations) inherent, inalienable, indefeasible and selfexecuting rights are guaranteed for a clean and healthy environment. That regardless of natural conditions every person’s inherent, inalienable, indefeasible and self-executing rights are to be provided with pure water, clean air and healthy ecosystems.

Given the emphasis already in place for government to command and control activities due to the obsession of revamping people’s lives for the purpose of restricting greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of costs or negative consequences…reflect on what AJR 3 – “the Green Amendment” will do when it comes to every person’s (present and for all future generations) inherent, inalienable, indefensible and self-executing right to a stable climate.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to contact the members of the Nevada Legislature and share your thoughts on whether AJR 3 fits in the Nevada Constitution or not.