Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book

Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book 2007-2008 Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06105 860-236-5442 Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (CTLCV Education Fund) is a non-profit, non-partisan, statewide environmental organization. Our mission is to strengthen Connecticut’s environmental movement through education and by involving citizens in state and local public policy decisions regarding the state’s natural resources. In putting together the Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book, CTLCV Education Fund board and staff relied on many of the environmental advocates across the state for guidance. The resulting issue briefs were written by or, in some cases, a team of environmental leaders. WE WOULD ESPECIALLY LIKE TO THANK Nancy Alderman, Environment and Human Health, Inc. David Bingham, Sierra Club, Connecticut Chapter Sandy Breslin, Audubon Connecticut Public Policy Office Bryan Garcia, formerly Connecticut Clean Energy Fund Heidi Green and Sue Merrow, 1000 Friends of Connecticut Eric Hammerling, Farmington River Watershed Association Megan Hearn, Connecticut River Watershed Council Alice Liddell and Jessie Stratton, Environment Northeast Martin Mador, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Jiff Martin, Working Lands Alliance C.J. May, Kim O’Rourke and Jonathan Bilmes, Connecticut Recyclers Coalition Betty McLaughlin, Connecticut Audubon Margaret Miner, Rivers Alliance of Connecticut Dr. Mark Mitchell, Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice Adam Moore, Connecticut Forest and Park Association Tom ODell, Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetland Commissions Christopher Phelps, Connecticut Public Interest Research Group, Environment Connecticut Program Roger Reynolds, Charles Rothenberger, Karen Burnaska, Curt Johnson and Leah Schmalz, Connecticut Fund for the Environment Ellen Scalettar, fomerly Connecticut Voices for Children Leo Smith, International Dark Sky Association, Connecticut Chapter Roger Smith, Clean Water Action and Connecticut Climate Coalition David Sutherland, The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter Bob Wall, Connecticut Clean Energy Fund, formerly Smart Power Most of the issues covered in the Briefing Book are of great concern to many environmental advocacy groups, not just the contributors of the specific articles. We have attempted to identify a variety of groups working on similar issues at the end of each brief. While by no means exhaustive, the list is a good representation of the interest areas of many of Connecticut’s environmental advocacy groups. Please note that the views expressed on any particular issue are not necessarily the views of all contributing organizations. Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction | 2 Global Warming | 3 Energy | 5 5| 6| 7| 8| Connecticut’s Clean Energy Policies Clean Energy Technologies Energy Efficiency and Conservation Green Buildings Environmental Enforcement & Public Participation | 9 9| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Connecticut Environmental Protection Act Connecticut Environmental Policy Act Council on Environmental Quality Environmental Review of State Lands Inland Wetlands and Watercourses - Enforcement Municipal Green Fund Community Investment Open Space Smart Growth Farmland Preservation Invasive Plants All-Terrain Vehicles State Parks and State Forests Land Use and Conservation | 15 Habitat Conservation & Wildlife Diversity | 23 Light Pollution | 24 Environmental Justice | 25 Toxics | 26 26 | Lawn-Care Pesticides 27 | Mercury Waste and Recycling | 28 28 | Solid Waste Management Plan 29 | Beverage Container Recycling 30 | Electronic Waste Transportation | 31 31 | Diesel Emissions 32 | Clean Cars 33 | Transportation and Land Use 34 | 35 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | Water Management Drinking Water Source Protection Non-Point Source Pollution Clean Waterways Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Utility/Watershed Lands Long Island Sound - Stewardship Long Island Sound - Public vs. Private Resources Water | 34 SPECIAL NOTE A CROSS REFERENCES section has been created on each page to highlight the interrelated relationships that exist between the various issues. Additionally, the ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTORY provides complete contact information for environmental advocates incuding their websites. Additional Resources | 43 43 | Budget Basics 48 | Connecticut Environmental Directory Dear Reader, When we published the first edition of this Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book three years ago we really had no idea how useful it would prove to be among such a diverse audience. Or that it would be a best “seller”. (Except we give it away!) As originally conceived, we wanted it to be useful to legislators who wished to know more about environmental issues they were being asked to address. We know that it has served that purpose, but the Briefing Book has proved to be a valuable and credible resource not only for public officials at all levels of government but for environmental advocates, “stakeholders” and the general public. If you want to know more about an issue, the Briefing Book is a great place to start. In the pages that follow, you will find issues defined, some action recommendations and the likely push-back of folks who disagree. We also show you where to look for more information. We are indebted to the many members of the environmental community who have participated in choosing the issues in this third edition – more than in the last one – and have written the particular discussions themselves. Without their expert contributions a book like this would not be possible. A few emergent concerns bear special mention: First, you will find a recurrent emphasis on issues having to do with energy and global warming. How we produce, use and distribute energy resonates across a wide range of choices by government, industry and private individuals, and has an affect on global warming as our writers point out. Getting this right has a lot to do with the well-being of Connecticut, the nation and, indeed, the planet. Connecticut and other New England states can be proud of initiatives already underway that help curb global warming, but we have merely begun. Second, another issue that has been brushed aside for too long is providing sufficient funding for the Department of Environmental Protection to accomplish the tasks we have given the agency. We have devoted a special section to the state operating and bond budget process so that readers may be better informed. There is much to be learned, much to be discussed, and much to be done. Whether we live in Bridgeport or Ashford, Greenwich or Willimantic and whether we are a legislator or a constituent, there is a need for us to become informed and to participate. We hope this briefing book will help you on your way. Sincerely, Russ Brenneman Chair Lori Brown Executive Director GLOBAL WARMING 2001 was a landmark year for global warming. That was the year the world’s main scientific advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, issued a long-awaited report confirming that the earth had warmed significantly over the last 50 years and that human activities were the explanation for much of the recent rise in temperatures. 2001 was also the year the United States announced America would no longer participate in the binding international agreement to reduce global warming pollution, known as the Kyoto Protocol. Since 2001, the science of global warming has become even clearer and increasingly urgent, and Connecticut and the New England states have emerged as internationally recognized leaders in creating solutions to global warming. Our challenge as a state is to implement solutions to global warming that will reduce our contribution to the problem, help us move beyond dependence on fossil fuels and set an example for other states and the nation as a whole. THE GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS Burning fossil fuels—oil, coal, and gas—intensifies the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming by trapping the sun’s heat. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are unprecedented in human history, and a September 2006 NASA study indicated that the earth’s temperatures are nearing the highest level in the last 12,000 years, and closing in on the hottest in the last million years. The negative effects of global warming will be felt in Connecticut, as in the rest of the world through heatrelated illnesses and deaths, insect-borne diseases and coastal flooding. Financial costs are rising as a result of an increasingly unstable climate. The Reinsurance Association of America reported that insurers paid $57 billion for weather-related losses in the first half of the 1990s compared with $17 billion for the entire previous decade, and $58 billion in claims in 2005 alone. Connecticut, which has over $400 billion in insured coastal assets, is the sixth most exposed state in the nation, and climate-related damage could risk our economic future. * Our label to related environmental issues centered around global warming. In Connecticut, global warming has an impact on many areas including the following. Connecticut’s Clean Energy Policies Clean Energy Technologies Energy Efficiency and Conservation Green Buildings Environmental Justice Open Space Smart Growth Transportation and Land Use Clean Cars Diesel Pollution Beverage Container Recycling Solid Waste Management Plan Electronic Waste NEW ENGLAND RESPONDS TO GLOBAL WARMING Faced with inaction at the federal level, states have taken the lead. In 2001, the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) agreed on a broad Climate Change Action Plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plan projects greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced in the region to 1990 levels by 2010, 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 75-85% in the long term, levels that scientists believe are necessary to stabilize the climate. Further, the Climate Change Action Plan identifies the aspects of global warming which are within the region’s control to influence. In Connecticut, transportation and electricity generation are the largest sources of carbon dioxide, with heating and industrial activity accounting for much of the remainder. More than three-fourths of New England’s electricity comes from non-renewable sources such as coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power. The heavy reliance on increasingly scarce and expensive fossil fuels threatens Connecticut’s environmental and economic stability. To begin to address this problem, in 2004, the Connecticut General Assembly passed global warming legislation (PA 04-252), making the regional global warming goals Connecticut law and directing the state agencies to develop near- and long-term plans for meeting the goals. Pursuant to this act, on February 15th, 2005 the Governor’s Steering Committee on Climate Change released a comprehensive Connecticut Climate Change Action plan with 55 policies for reducing global warming pollution. In December 2005, Governor Rell committed the state to take part in a seven state program, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), to cut carbon dioxide pollution from power plants throughout the northeast. Under RGGI, power plants are allowed to meet the reduction requirements by either reducing their own emissions, or by buying pollution credits from a facility that makes greater-than-required carbon emission reduction. | page 3 GLOBAL WARMING The urgency of meeting the state’s targets is underscored by the recent scientific findings regarding the current pace of warming. While Connecticut has completed the necessary planning and analysis to hit the 2010 target, emissions continue to rise, and many of the key measures have yet to be acted upon. THE DEBATE The state and federal governments, as well as grassroots organizations, the scientific community and businesses have acknowledged that global warming exists and something needs to be done. Nationwide, opponents of efforts to combat global warming have stated that we do not yet know if humans are to blame for the warming of the earth’s atmosphere, because the recent warming could simply be part of a natural cycle. This claim has not withstood scientific scrutiny. The scientists who have investigated natural and manmade influences on the climate can explain the recent rapid warming only by including humanrelated emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists at the US EPA, National Academy of Scientists, and even at auto and oil companies such as Ford, BP and Shell do not dispute the attribution of recent warming to human activity. In fact leading Connecticut corporations, such as United Technologies Corporation, General Electric and Pfizer, are leading the charge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing their own profitability. Regardless of the science or of corporate activity, some argue that we should wait for new technology to solve the problem. Even though clean and efficient technologies continue to improve, global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels in all their applications. Thus, no single solution can prevent the negative effects of global warming. The reality is that we can get started and achieve the NEG/ECP’s shortand medium-term targets if the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan is followed. The longer we wait, the more costly it will be to make deep reductions in carbon emissions. Opponents to taking action stress that since Connecticut is a small state with limited ability to solve a global problem, we should wait for action at the Federal level. Fortunately Connecticut recognizes that a small state can play a significant leadership role by setting an example for other states and the nation to follow. Our successes will help demonstrate the feasibility of reducing greenhouse gases and bring about Federal action much sooner. Only if Connecticut reduces its own contribution to the problem will it have the moral standing to ask other states, Washington D.C., and even other nations to reduce theirs. States have traditionally led the Federal government on environmental policy. Global warming is no different. FOR MORE INFORMATION Roger Smith Connecticut Climate Coalition c/o Clean Water Action 860-232-6232 Alice Liddell Environment Northeast 203-495-8224 Christopher Phelps ConnPIRG/Environment Connecticut 860-233-7554 Charles Rothenberger Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 RELATED WEBSITES New England Climate Coalition CT Climate Change Action Plan Environment Northeast Roadmap Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound NEXT STEPS To meet the goals set by the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan the governor and legislature must: 1) Create energy efficiency programs for natural gas and heating oil customers. 2) Participate in the northeastern governors’ initiative to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. 3) Double the recycling rate and reuse material to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from waste handling, transport and disposal. 4) Reduce “black carbon” soot from diesel engines. 5) Mandate that ratepayer money go to cost-saving energy efficiency programs before spending money on expensive new power plants or other supply sources. 6) Mandate that schools be built or renovated to comply with energy-efficient green building standards and encourage the adoption of these standards throughout the construction industry. 7) Continue mandatory and voluntary programs to support Class I renewable energy. 8) Implement clean cars standards. 9) Encourage mass transit and transit-oriented development. page 4 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 ENERGY Connecticut’s Clean Energy Policies Connecticut has supported clean energy through legislation mandating that utilities and other electricity providers offer an ever-increasing percentage of renewable power to their customers. The percentage of power that utilities must provide from renewable sources is known as their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Connecticut has an RPS target of 7% by 2010 and the Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan proposes an increase to 20% by 2020. The Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF) was established by the State to invest in clean energy markets and renewable technologies and to promote the options that are available to homeowners, businesses and institutions. CCEF has sponsored Project 100 to build at least 100 megawatts of renewable energy in Connecticut, and the CT Clean Energy Options program that encourages towns to receive 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. CCEF also provides rebates, grants and loans to help finance the purchase of solar photovoltaic systems. In addition to solar technologies, other incentive programs are available for onsite wind, small hydroelectric, fuel cell and landfill gas technologies. In 2005, the Governor’s office issued an executive order requiring state agencies to obtain 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 50% by 2020, and 100% by 2050. FOR MORE INFORMATION Bob Wall Connecticut Clean Energy Fund 860-257-2354 Keri Enright SmartPower 860-249-7040 Roger Smith Connecticut Climate Coalition c/o Clean Water Action 860-232-6232 Alice Liddell Environment Northeast 203-495-8224 Christopher Phelps ConnPIRG/Environment CT 860-233-7554 RELATED WEBSITES CT Clean Energy Options Connecticut Clean Energy Communities Program Community Energy Sterling Planet Connecticut Energy Information CROSS REFERENCES Clean Energy Technologies Energy Efficiency and Conservation Global Warming THE DEBATE Clean energy enrollment programs are available from suppliers across the nation, providing customers with the opportunity to support clean renewable energy. Although clean energy sources are available to Connecticut consumers, greater demand is needed to grow the market and reduce the costs. But a major challenge facing clean energy is public perception. Some Americans do not yet think of clean energy as a viable option or they are concerned about the higher price associated with today’s clean energy. Increased consumer demand for clean energy is needed immediately to transform the marketplace. Otherwise potential renewable energy generators will take their resources elsewhere, and our region will continue to rely upon fossil fuels for a majority of our energy. On the supply side, two primary factors are preventing more clean energy projects from being built: 1) a lack of long-term contracts that enable project financing, and 2) high hurdles for obtaining permits, driven primarily by local opposition to development. NEXT STEPS 1) Promote legislation to support the use of long term contracts by the state and municipalities to spur more renewable investment in Connecticut. 2) Extend the RPS beyond 2010 to reach the 20% by the 2020 goal, and increase Project 100 to Project 250 to develop more instate and regional clean renewable energy sources to support this RPS policy. 3) Encourage individuals, businesses and municipalities to increase the demand for clean energy by supporting the CT Clean Energy Options program and the municipal campaign to achieve 20 % by 2010. 4) Ensure that the budget for solar incentives continues to grow to accommodate a rapidly growing market for solar energy systems and increase the “net metering” law to foster the growth of on-site renewable distributed generation systems. 5) Adopt proposed regulations for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that require generators to pay for each ton of their carbon dioxide pollution and help level the playing field for clean energy sources. 6) Require conservation and energy efficiency to avoid the need for additional power plants. | page 5 ENERGY Clean Energy Technologies New England has traditionally relied on fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal) and nuclear power for most of its energy needs. Fossil fuels pollute the environment, endanger health, contribute to global warming and are bound to become more expensive as reserves diminish. Only a small portion of our power comes from what are called “clean, renewable energy” resources, generated using hydro, wind, solar, biomass, fuel cells and other sources. Unlike conventional fuels, these energy sources are considered “clean” because they produce little or no harmful emissions (sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury) and do not result in the destruction of land, contamination of water or the creation of radioactive wastes. Furthermore, unlike finite fossil fuels, these fuel sources can be replenished. While each form of clean energy may have some distinctive environmental impact, replacing fossil fuels with “renewables” will unquestionably reduce unhealthy air emissions, diminish global warming gasses and support greater U.S. energy security and independence. There are many alternatives to fossil fuels: Wind, hydro, and biomass sources can create electricity by turning turbines that activate a generator without burning fossil fuels. Wind energy can be harnessed anywhere the wind blows with a consistent force. Biomass facilities which burn plant or plant derived products generated from the agricultural and wood-processing industries, produce steam to spin turbines to generate electricity. Geothermal energy can be harnessed with heat pumps that channel the constant temperature of the earth and provide heating and cooling to our buildings. Hydropower projects use water retained from a dam and a reservoir to rotate turbines. Solar cells called photovoltaics convert sunlight directly into electricity, whereas solar thermal energy can be harnessed by technologies that can directly and efficiently produce hot water for our buildings. Generating electricity from these renewable resources reduces greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. FOR MORE INFORMATION Bob Wall Connecticut Clean Energy Fund 860-257-2354 Keri Enright SmartPower 860-249-7040 Alice Liddell Environment Northeast 203-495-8224 Roger Smith Connecticut Climate Coalition c/o Clean Water Action 860-232-6232 RELATED WEBSITES Interreligious Eco-Justice Network Connecticut Clean Energy Options Connecticut Clean Energy Communities Program CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut’s Clean Energy Policies Energy Efficiency and Conservation Global Warming Green Buildings THE DEBATE The use of fossil fuels to generate energy in Connecticut is drawing increasing scrutiny and being discouraged because of higher fuel costs, limited availability, and global warming concerns. However, it is still more expensive to generate electricity from some types of renewable energy than from fossil fuels. Many renewables run intermittently, relying on the weather or time of day which can put them at a competitive disadvantage in certain applications. They are often sited in locations that complicate quick and economical development. On the other hand, certain renewable energy generation technologies—such as wind—are already cost competitive with most fossil fuel generation. Solar photovoltaics traditionally have been considered expensive but this is changing as solar technologies become more efficient and manufactured in large quantities. Also, Connecticut is part of the regional New England grid, and can reap the gains of renewable energy developments in our neighboring states. Thus, Connecticut has an array of clean renewable energy sources available. It is only a matter of time before residents demand their use instead of fossil fuels to meet energy needs. NEXT STEPS 1) Continue to create a viable market for clean, renewable energy by supporting efforts to increase consumer demand. 2) Create a market structure that rewards sources of energy that have fewer global warming emissions. 3) Increase the supply of clean energy. page 6 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 ENERGY Energy Efficiency and Conservation Connecticut has been a national leader in promoting electric energy efficiency primarily through programs established by the rate payer supported Conservation and Load Management Fund (C&LM Fund). In 2005 the C&LM Fund was ranked the best in the nation for the $4 in savings produced for every $1 spent on efficiency programs. In addition these expenditures created approximately 1,000 non-utility jobs. A London Economics report done for the state’s Energy Conservation Management Board (ECMB) in 2004 concludes that greater investments in cost effective measures could save Connecticut customers $1.8 billion dollars by 2012 and eliminate the growth in per capita energy consumption that drives the need for building more power plants. Connecticut also offers electric customer’s the opportunity to purchase renewable energy through their existing utility providers. The value and potential benefits of efficiency and demand response programs (voluntary programs where customers agree to receive less power during peak demand times) have started to gain some recognition. The Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) and the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO-NE), which operates the regional electricity grid set a national standard by considering efficiency and demand response as equal energy resources when compared to new generation. This is important because as the DPUC and ISO- NE select bids to meet state and regional energy needs, those bids will now include efficiency programs that help curb global warming. Furthermore, in 2004, Connecticut followed the lead of California and Maryland by adopting efficiency standards for a variety of products not covered by Federal law. Connecticut also recently updated its building energy codes to improve the efficiency of all new and renovated buildings. In 2006 the state adopted green building standards, known as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Standards (LEEDS), for state building projects. Unfortunately, school buildings were exempted from the law, which make up the bulk of state building projects FOR MORE INFORMATION Alice Liddell, Jessie Stratton Environment Northeast 203-495-8224 Roger Smith Connecticut Climate Coalition c/o Clean Water Action 860-232-6232 Christopher Phelps ConnPIRG/Environment Connecticut 860-233-7554 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Energy Conservation Management Board CROSS REFERENCES Clean Energy Technologies Connecticut Clean Energy Policies Global Warming Green Buildings THE DEBATE For the last several years the legislature has diverted more than $100 million from C&LM Fund to balance the budget thus depriving over 90,000 customers the benefit of these programs. The legislature has restored some of these monies but about $35 million a year is still being diverted. Full restoration of these funds to their intended use is a first priority. The decision by ISO-NE to treat efficiency on the same basis as new generation opens the door to much greater investments in efficiency that will benefit all ratepayers, the environment, and reduce the need for building new generation and distribution lines. Equally important will be establishing similar conservation and efficiency programs for natural gas and home heating oil customers in order to reduce the environmental burdens caused by burning these fossil fuels. NEXT STEPS 1) Modernize Connecticut’s energy planning to benefit consumers and the environment by requiring that the full range of energy resources, energy efficiency as well as powerplant supply, are examined and purchased by our utilities. 2) Reform the way utilities are compensated so that they are rewarded for investing in energy efficiency and other clean resources, rather than just by selling more energy. 3) Offer efficiency programs for users of home heating fuels. 4) Establish advanced building efficiency “performance” standards for all new state-owned or state-financed building projects and major renovations. | page 7 ENERGY Green Buildings Green Building standards address a broad range of environmental issues from site impacts and building materials to energy and water consumption. Building green also includes environmental issues related to stormwater management, recycling, renewable power, transportation, day lighting, and the quality of the indoor environment. Effective green building strategies include lowering energy consumption with thermally efficient building shells, energy modeling during design, reducing pressure on transportation by siting buildings in high population density areas, reducing water consumption with low-use fixtures and appropriate site irrigation, and managing indoor air quality to reduce pollution from toxic materials. Green buildings can reduce the cost of electric power to their residents, decrease the demand on electrical generation facilities, and curb the emission of greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming. Buildings constructed within the past decade have incorporated some green elements, but more can be done. A true commitment to building green requires a focused program that encourages comprehensive planning and design and incorporates third party certification. This usually means using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program of the U.S. Green Building Council. A project’s certification level depends on the points earned by implementing various green strategies. State governments around the nation are not only requiring green building certification for publicly financed construction, but are also providing incentives for private construction as well. Both the Department of Public Works (through the state Architect’s Office) and DEP’s Pollution Prevention Office have become involved in promoting Green Buildings. Legislation to require green building standards for public projects partially passed in 2006, but exempted schools, which comprise the bulk of state funded projects. FOR MORE INFORMATION Martin Mador Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies 203-432-9433 Charles Rothenberger Connecticut Fund for the Environment 203-787-0646 William Leahy Institute for Sustainable Energy Eastern Connecticut State University 860-465-0252 RELATED WEBSITES US Green Building Council Connecticut Green Building Council CROSS REFERENCES Energy Efficiency and Conservation Global Warming Smart Growth THE DEBATE Groups advocating for energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions strongly support green buildings. Some trade associations fear their products may not be perceived as green. Developers, architects, engineers and contractors have reservations because of the necessity of learning new technologies. School superintendents and boards of education are concerned with the small increased capital costs to follow green building standards. Building green may require higher up front costs, on the order of several percent. However, the financial savings over the life of a building are significant, with typical payback periods of less than five years. Equally significant are the contributions to occupants’ health, productivity and comfort. NEXT STEPS 1) All new state-funded school construction should have to comply with Green Building standards. 2) Provide financial incentives for private construction that complies with Green Building standards. 3) Encourage Green Building retrofits when properties are sold or rented and explore opportunities to encourage Energy Efficiency Mortgages which carry low interest rates for homes that invest in energy efficiency improvements. page 8 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 -2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible for a host of environmental issues, including open-space acquisition, pollution prevention, air quality, watershed and waste management, and environmental compliance and stewardship. In January of 2006, DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy issued a report called the ‘Path of Least Resistance’ highlighting the areas where major action is necessary. Those areas include strong enforcement to enhance compliance with DEP regulations; improving efficiency of DEP programs; and outreach to work more closely with communities such as expanding internet based opportunities for more efficient reporting as well as transparency of DEP guidelines and regulations. Previous to this report the DEP identified nine strategic priorities for Fiscal Years 2002–2007: Air Quality Management, Watershed Management, Long Island Sound, Conservation and Development Planning and Management, Management of Toxic Pollutants, Materials Management, Emergency Response, Managing Environmental Compliance, and Promoting Environmental Stewardship. While the DEP has recreation, conservation, and education responsibilities, this fact sheet focuses on enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in achieving compliance. FOR MORE INFORMATION Connecticut League of Conservation Voters 860-236-5442> Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Rivers Alliance of Connecticut 860-361-9349 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection CROSS REFERENCES All subject areas THE DEBATE The Governor’s office and the Legislature are responsible for allocating funding amongst the many competing state agencies. Repeated cuts in the DEP’s budget over the years has limited its ability to enforce state environmental laws and regulations. DEP is challenged to expand the development and delivery of new programs, processes, services, and regulations with ever decreasing resources. Moreover, state enforcement programs are frequently tied to federal ones which have also been underfunded. The recent loss of about 15% of DEP workforce, including many experienced staff, makes it especially difficult for the agency to fulfill its mission. NEXT STEPS 1) Restore full funding to the DEP to help ensure environmental issues and regulations are addressed. 2) Increase the agency’s focus on enforcement and regulatory leadership. 3) Advocate for expansion of the state’s investment in the environmental infrastructure including municipal wastewater treatment, superfund and brownfield site cleanups, aquifer protection, open space acquisition, recycling, and the other capital programs that form the basic protections of Connecticut’s environmental quality and natural resource protection. 4) Emphasize pollution prevention to achieve compliance and avoid the need for enforcement measures. 5) Help the public understand that economic growth and environmental protection are not in conflict and are mutually achievable. | page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Connecticut Environmental Protection Act The Connecticut Environmental Protection Act allows members of the public to intervene in administrative proceedings affecting the environment and to go directly to court to protect threatened natural resources. The Protection Act, related to, but not to be confused with the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, functions as a safeguard to make sure that government agencies are carrying out the environmental responsibilities entrusted to them. Without such a law, citizens have little ability to meaningfully impact critical environmental decisions. The Protection Act gives citizens direct access to court to protect the environment from unreasonable pollution or impairment. A series of recent court decisions, however, has limited the ability of citizens to use the Protection Act to challenge environmental regulations and permitting procedures, even when such regulations are outdated and unprotective. Moreover, there have been periodic attempts from the opponents of the Protection Act to weaken it even further through legislation, such a recent effort to restrict citizens’ ability to challenge settlements between land use agencies and developers that are bad for the environment. FOR MORE INFORMATION Roger Reynolds Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 x 307 Margaret Miner Rivers Alliance of Connecticut 860-361-9349 Russ Brenneman Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 860-236-5442 CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Environmental Policy Act THE DEBATE Proponents claim court access granted through the Protection Act is vital in allowing the public to intervene in administrative proceedings affecting the environment and to challenge outdated and unprotective regulations. Opponents have argued that legal challenges under the Protection Act can lead to project delays, or scuttle settlements between land use agencies and developers. This argument, however, ignores the critical role the Protection Act has played for 30 years in preserving some of Connecticut’s most precious environmental treasures. NEXT STEPS 1) Legislatively clarify the Protection Act to allow courts to consider whether agency regulations and other agency actions are adequately protecting the public trust in the state’s natural resources. 2) Prevent further weakening of Protection Act and the public’s right to participate in environmental and land-use proceedings. page 10 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Connecticut Environmental Policy Act The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act requires government officials to consider Connecticut’s air, water, open space, and related health concerns when planning and executing development and other projects. The Policy Act, not to be confused with the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act, triggers an environmental review of state actions that could significantly affect the environment. When followed correctly, the Policy Act ensures that available avenues for avoiding environmental damage are explored and that citizens participate early on and throughout the process. This process minimizes impacts on land and water from State funded projects every year, while avoiding costly lawsuits. Land use decisions in Connecticut are generally made at the local level by one of its 169 individual towns. These towns typically lack both funds and jurisdiction to consider all of the environmental consequences of development. Thus, the Policy Act constitutes one of the only ways to consider and plan for the regional and statewide impacts of public development projects before they move forward. Because the Policy Act is limited to state actions, privately funded developments receive no such overarching review. Moreover, while the Policy Act requires the state to identify ways to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts, there is no process in place to determine whether such mitigation measures have been implemented or, if so, whether they have been successful. Massachusetts and New York laws require environmental reviews for private projects over a certain size that are permitted by the state, not just those initiated and funded by the state. These states also have clearer standards and procedures to ensure mitigation of environmental damage. In 2003, Connecticut lawmakers worked to strengthen and improve the Policy Act but more needs to be done. FOR MORE INFORMATION Roger Reynolds Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 x 307 Margaret Miner Rivers Alliance of Connecticut 860-361-9349 Russ Brenneman Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 860-236-5442 CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Environmental Protection Act THE DEBATE Many state development projects are underway across Connecticut and supporters of the Policy Act claim more needs to be done through the planning process to account for potential environmental impacts. Opponents believe the Policy Act can lead to delays in projects. The reality is that the Policy Act is designed to identify possible controversies early in the process and find the best possible ways to avoid environmental damage. If Connecticut fails to strengthen the Policy Act for state funded projects and to address private projects, we risk permanently transforming our New England landscape without seriously or systematically considering the consequences to our environment. NEXT STEPS 1) Work with state agencies to develop new regulations that incorporate legislative changes made in 2003. 2) Help state agencies develop new Environmental Classification Documents, which are the criteria that guide agencies and initiate the Policy Act process. 3) Work with state agencies to develop a process to track the number of projects with approved mitigation plans and follow up to ensure the plans have been implemented and are working. 4) Work with the legislature and state agencies to expand Connecticut Environmental Protection Act to apply to large private projects and to incorporate stronger provisions to mitigate environmental damage. | page 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Council on Environmental Quality The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is a panel of nine citizens appointed by the governor and legislative leaders who monitor Connecticut’s progress toward meeting the state’s environmental goals. Its comprehensive annual report, Environmental Quality in Connecticut, is considered to be the authoritative assessment of environmental trends in the state. The CEQ’s research and special reports have laid the foundation for a variety of legislative initiatives, including major improvements to open space conservation, greenway development, the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, restrictions on invasive species, reduction of toxic materials in the environment, and protection of preserved lands from illegal tree cutting and other boundary encroachments. FOR MORE INFORMATION Council on Environmental Quality 860-424-4000 (The duties of the CEQ are described in Sections 22a-11 through 22a-13 of the C.G.S.) CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Environmental Policy Act Connecticut Environmental Protection Act The Council also publishes the Environmental Monitor on its website to notify the public about upcoming state development projects, and investigates citizen complaints. Complaints frequently involve other state agencies, and often are submitted by citizens who have nowhere else to turn when they see environmental problems. The Council’s complaint investigations have led to many changes in state policies and practices. Therefore, not only does the CEQ provide an apolitical setting to consider policy issues, but it is also a very important watchdog highlighting environmental successes and failures in Connecticut with its annual report. Since 1972, the Council has been able to fulfill its mission with just two staff people in support of the nine appointed members, who serve without compensation. Even when the Council was critical of projects or practices of other state agencies, its value was never questioned. In 2003, however, the Council’s elimination was suddenly proposed during that year’s bruising budget battle in Hartford. Citizens and organizations from across the state rallied to CEQ’s defense, and the Council was saved—but barely. Its budget was cut to support just one staff person, and even that required an infusion of private foundation funds. In 2006, the General Assembly restored the second position (an Environmental Analyst) for only half of the 2007 fiscal year. THE DEBATE The CEQ offers one of the only direct avenues for citizens to submit complaints about environmental problems that might otherwise go unnoticed by the State. Opponents have tried to limit the budget available to the CEQ claiming that the CEQ is repeating work already done by other state agencies. Fully funding CEQ is vital to give a better voice to citizens and increase understanding of environmental problems within the state. NEXT STEPS Continue full funding of the CEQ in the state budget (about $160,000 annually). page 12 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Environmental Review for State Land Sales While the State spends millions of dollars each year to purchase and preserve open space, it is equally important to protect the open space that the state already owns. In addition to purchasing large blocks of prime open space, the State is also a seller of properties, often at well below market value. Lately, there has been concern that the state may be selling public lands with insufficient environmental review and no public discussion. This was revealed recently by the sales of Fairfield Hills Hospital in Newtown and Norwich State Hospital in Preston; the latter involved selling hundreds of acres of environmentally sensitive lands for $1. In both of these cases, serious questions were raised about the thoroughness of the state’s review of natural resources on the property. Although the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act requires a public review of state actions that could significantly affect the environment including acquisition and development of land, the state agencies are not required to undertake such reviews for major open space sales. FOR MORE INFORMATION Roger Reynolds Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 Margaret Miner Rivers Alliance of Connecticut 860-361-9349 CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Environmental Policy Act Open Space THE DEBATE Pressures to sell and develop precious state lands will only increase over time. While the Department of Environmental Protection and other state agencies were initially reluctant to increase the level of review of state land transfers, by the end of the 2006 legislative session, they no longer objected to the proposed statutory review requirements. State properties should not be carved up for development without a meaningful public discussion about important environmental and recreational assets. NEXT STEPS New laws are needed to require environmental review for certain state land transfers, to mandate public notice of all state land sales, and to provide meaningful opportunities for public input. | page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Inland Wetlands and Watercourses - Enforcement With the passage of Connecticut’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act in 1972 the critical importance of wetlands and watercourses to the citizens of the state was established and actions to protect them were defined. The Act charged the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), through the Inland Water Resources Program, with the responsibility to develop model regulations. The 1972 Act also charged Connecticut towns with the responsibility to adopt, implement and enforce those regulations through local inland wetland commissions. Local commissions review and make decisions on approximately 4500 increasingly complex development applications each year, often without the resources for expert technical and legal guidance. Well-funded applicants with experts testifying on the soundness of any proposed project often have the “upper hand” in the decision and enforcement process. Applicants recognize that towns often lack the technical, legal and financial means, or the will, to enforce a permit’s ‘conditions of approval’ or to go to court when an applicant appeals a decision. Recent trends in court decisions require commissions to defend their actions with expert testimony. The Connecticut General Statutes provide wetlands commissions with two fee-based means to cover all costs for reviewing applications and monitoring compliance with permit conditions or agency orders, including specialized technical expertise. Both require action by the town to establish the fee and the process used to collect it. Only about one third of the towns have taken action to establish such a fee schedule to cover all costs of an application. In an attempt to shorten and reduce the costs of the local application process, builders have initiated and supported legislation to merge inland wetlands responsibility with planning and zoning agencies. However, combining all three responsibilities requires volunteer commissioners to understand three different sets of regulations. The regulation and administration for just the inland wetlands functions has become increasingly complex, both legally and technically. If commissions are combined then the technical and legal support structure is not given the same time and attention for inland wetlands that is given to zoning and planning aspects of the application. As a result, adequate consideration of environmental management issues, including enforcement, can be overlooked during the decision processes of the combined inland wetlands and planning and zoning commission. FOR MORE INFORMATION Tom ODell Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District 860-399-1807 Ann Letendre Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions 860-875-4623 Lynn Werner Housatonic Valley Association 860-672-6678 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Management Inland Wetlands Resources Programs CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Inland Wetlands and Watercourses - Water Smart Growth THE DEBATE Faced with increasing budget pressures, towns are finding it difficult to find sufficient funding to staff wetlands administration and enforcement, particularly enforcement of conditions of approval for wetlands permits, and enforcement of penalties for wetlands violations. At the same time, applicants/ developers complain about delays, town-to-town variability, and the cost of the wetlands decision process. NEXT STEPS 1) Strengthen the DEP’s Inland Water Resources Program in order to assist commissions in enforcing the local regulatory process. 2) Seek clarification on the jurisdiction of inland wetlands commissions to understand if they are to be a separate agency or combined with planning and zoning commissions. 3) Encourage towns to implement additional fees with filings to support funding for technical expertise. page 14 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 LAND Municipal Green Fund Property taxes underwrite most municipal conservation expenditures. Examples include land acquisition and protection, diesel retrofitting of municipal vehicles, stormwater management and sewage treatment facilities for clean water, brownfield remediation, and energy conservation initiatives such as “green buildings” and alternative transportation. Thus conservation projects compete with education, infrastructure, and other administrative municipal projects for property tax revenues. There is also a mandatory real estate conveyance tax on sales of land and buildings that has been used to generate funds since 1967, but this tax may expire. In its place, advocates propose a voluntary “Municipal Green Fund” be created by statute to enable municipalities, only if they so choose, to raise money through a local conveyance tax for conservation purposes. Such a tax authorization bill would need to be approved by the General Assembly. FOR MORE INFORMATION David Bingham or Sue Merrow Sierra Club - Connecticut Chapter 860-236-4405 Tom Odell Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions 860-399-1807 Henry N. Talmage Connecticut Farmland Trust 860-247-0202 Adam R. Moore Connecticut Forest and Park Association 860-346-2372 CROSS REFERENCES Community Investment Farmland Preservation Open Space THE DEBATE In 2005, the Community Investment Act was passed. It levies a $30 fee on land record filings and dedicates $26 of the fee to fund farmland, open space, historic preservation and affordable housing. Some feel that solves the conservation funding questions. While a positive and much needed step in the right direction, this current level of funding is inadequate to the task. Furthermore, the fees are administered by the State through existing programs that often favor projects where local matching grants are available. Many communities fail to meet the local matching requirements and lose out to wealthier communities. Property taxes provide limited opportunity for increased funding levels for conservation. A Municipal Green Fund transfer fee of up to 1% would provide municipalities with the ability to raise funds that could leverage additional private, State and federal grants for important regional conservation projects in the range of $300 million. The homebuilding and realtor interests claim that a land acquisition conveyance tax makes housing unaffordable for lower-income buyers. To limit the effect on the less affluent, it has been proposed that the first $100,000 of value on a real estate conveyance be exempt from the fee. It has also been proposed that municipalities could use some Municipal Green Fund monies to purchase real estate for affordable housing to meet this need. Some opponents also claim that the conveyance tax is currently unfair to sellers who now pay this tax when leaving an area. The proposed Municipal Green Fund fee is considered fairer to communities because it would be a voluntary choice by the town to adopt such a fund and it would switch the tax to the buyer of real estate. The buyer uses local land and services, and thus benefits from Municipal Green Fund projects that enhance a community. NEXT STEPS 1) Pass a new state law to allow municipalities to establish a Municipal Green Fund fee. 2) Each community would have to adopt the new law for it to take effect. 3) Local organizations and officials would need to work to prioritize the most effective use of Municipal Green Fund monies and to leverage increased private, State and federal grants for local conservation projects. | page 15 LAND Community Investment In 2005, the enactment of Public Act 228, also known as The Community Investment Act, provided increased funding for open space, farmland protection, historic preservation, affordable housing, and municipal capital improvement projects. This landmark legislation requires town and city clerks to collect a $30 fee on all documents filed on municipal land records. Municipalities keep $4 of each deed-recording fee and the remaining $26 is then remitted to a dedicated fund which is divided equally among four state agencies: the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture, the Housing Finance Authority and the Commission on Culture and Tourism. Current estimates are that funding from the Community Investment Act will provide up to $5 million annually to each agency for each established program. Unlike bonding, which is the state’s traditional source of funding for land protection, the Community Investment Act provides a stable source of cash-based funding for the Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Grant Program, the Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program, and the Historic Restoration Fund Grant for loan and mortgage assistance programs to affordable housing. Other programs funded by the new legislation that can help maintain working landscapes are the Connecticut Grown Program, the Agriculture Viability Grants Program, the Connecticut Farm Link Program, the Endangered Properties Fund Grants program and the Basic Operational Support Grants program for historic preservation. Despite this new funding stream for open space, farmland preservation, affordable housing and historic preservation, there have not been enough funds to meet the demand for land conservation resources or to assist in building stronger communities. Municipalities and land trusts that apply for open space grants from the state rarely receive the 50% funding match requested, and farmers applying to the state Farmland Preservation program currently must line up behind at least 30 other properties. There is no incentive for the four state agencies that benefit from the Community Investment Act to collaborate on projects that have multi-functional value (e.g. a parcel of unprotected farmland with a barn that has historical value). This illustrates the need for state agencies, municipalities and community stakeholders to work together to educate and involve the public so all programs can meet their potential. FOR MORE INFORMATION Jiff Martin Working Lands Alliance 860-683-4230 Helen Higgins Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation 203-562-6312 David Sutherland The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter 860-344-0716 x 317 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism Connecticut Housing Finance Authority Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Connecticut Department of Agriculture CROSS REFERENCES Farmland Preservation Municipal Green Fund Open Space Smart Growth THE DEBATE This new stream of funding has been established for community investment programs and does not put additional pressure on the budgets of municipalities. However, some opponents of the law are not in favor of paying higher out-of-pocket charges with the $30 filing fee, especially when they cannot see the immediate benefit. The law, however, is essential to preserving Connecticut’s working landscapes and residents will benefit in the long run when their local municipalities have a greater ability to invest in local projects that ensure stronger communities for the future. NEXT STEPS 1) Implementation of the Community Investment Act must be monitored closely in these early years to maintain the transparency and integrity of this landmark legislation. 2) Connecticut municipalities, in particular, need more outreach about new programs funded as a result of the Community Investment Act because if programs are underutilized, continued funding could be in jeopardy. page 16 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 -2008 LAND Open Space For many citizens in Connecticut, our state parks and forests often provide the only opportunities to hike a trail, swim in a lake, or throw a fishing line in a stream. Over the past decade, the state has made progress preserving open space by providing funds to acquire, or assist in acquiring, tracts of land in over 130 towns. Yet, Connecticut still ranks far behind our closest neighboring states in the amount of state-owned open space as a percent of the state’s total land area. The pace of land acquisition has slowed dramatically in the past three years, due to reduced state funding. The state’s goal, set in statute in 1997, is to preserve 21% of Connecticut’s land as open space, with 10% owned by the State itself and 11% owned by towns and land trusts. Since then, the State, towns, and trusts have acquired more than 57,000 acres — about 1.8% of the state’s land —bringing total conservation ownership to about 328,000 acres, or 12% of the state’s land. If 97,000 acres owned, but not permanently protected, by water companies is added, we have about 16%, three-quarters of the way toward the overall goal. This is achieved primarily through two state funds: The Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust Fund for the state to acquire land and the Open Space Matching Grants Program to assist towns and land trusts to purchase land. In many towns, the fate of every undeveloped acre will be determined within the next ten years. While much of this land is appropriate for development, it is essential that the state, towns, and trusts have a chance to acquire critically important parcels for outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, and protection of water supplies. FOR MORE INFORMATION David Sutherland The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter 860-344-0716 Ext. 317 Melissa Spear Trust for Public Land 203-777-7367 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 Lynn Werner Housatonic Valley Association 860-672-6678 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Open Space Acquisition CROSS REFERENCES Community Investment Global Warming Municipal Green Fund Smart Growth THE DEBATE Advocates for creating and maintaining open space claim open space preservation can provide not only critical conservation and environmental benefits, but also financial savings. Opponents have argued that the economic benefits of land development outweigh those of open space. While there may be other reasons to promote development, the costs to municipalities to provide services required by development projects are often much more of a financial burden than keeping the property as open space. Others argue that we simply do not have the funds right now to increase the pace of acquisition. Proponents point out that the two most popular parks in Connecticut, Hammonassett and Rocky Neck, were purchased during very difficult financial period—the latter was acquired during the Great Depression. Unlike roads and other bonded projects which can be built later if funds are delayed, open space projects are often lost forever. NEXT STEPS Connecticut must maintain substantial, predictable and diverse sources of funding to acquire carefully selected lands for state parks and forests and to assist communities in preserving key parcels. Substantial increases must be made in bonding, and use of surplus funds, for DEP’s two open space programs. The Community Investment Act, which was passed in 2005 and will provide an estimated $5 million annually for the Open Space Matching Grants programs, is an important supplement to bond funds. It will not be adequate by itself, however, so other dedicated funding sources should be implemented. | page 17 LAND Smart Growth “Smart Growth” means encouraging development in areas with existing roads, sewers and water systems while discouraging development in pristine areas, farmland and historic places. Smart growth policies revitalize brownfields, provide greater choice in transit, affordable housing and jobs. At the same time, these policies prevent the negative consequences of sprawling development. Irresponsible growth results in higher energy consumption, increased traffic congestion, underutilization of existing infrastructure, the need to make large investments in new municipal services, and the unnecessary loss of valuable scenic, historic and environmentally important open spaces. FOR MORE INFORMATION Heidi Green 1000 Friends of Connecticut 860-523-0003 Susan Godshall Regional Institute for the 21st Century 203-787-6735 Marci Wilkins Sierra Club 203-775-9644 CROSS REFERENCES Global Warming Open Space Transportation and Land Use The state’s over-reliance on property taxes to support kindergarten-thru-12th grade public education forces towns to compete for development in order to expand their tax bases. Local revenues from the towns pay for these education costs. Meanwhile, single-use zoning and large minimum lot sizes make it easier and cheaper for developers to build in untouched areas and limit private market redevelopment of older centers of population. Less concentrated development means our communities are not walkable. A long-standing bias for road and highway projects has caused us to neglect our transit, rails and ports, limiting affordable and convenient transit options. Fortunately, the smart growth movement in Connecticut is building momentum, and we have made significant steps in recent years. The state adopted a Comprehensive Conservation and Development Policies Plan in 2005 that identified priority growth areas. The Transportation Strategy Board (TSB), responsible for the policies and planning of Connecticut transportation infrastructure, was moved from the Department of Transportation into the Office of Policy and Management. In 2005 and 2006, initiatives of the TSB were passed that called for the coordination of land use, economic development and traffic patterns in all transportation spending. This year, the Office of Responsible Growth, also found within the Office of Policy and Management, was created by Executive Order to help coordinate and support Connecticut’s smart growth activities. THE DEBATE Proponents of smart growth policies advocate land conservation, transportation and environmental planning, infrastructure redevelopment, community investment and historic preservation. Together they claim that Connecticut can encourage a healthy economic climate and still stop the threat of irresponsible growth without the need for large new suburban developments to generate property tax revenues. Opponents to smart growth, argue that economic development and growth would be limited and towns would suffer as a result of decreased property tax revenue. Still, the reliance on property taxes results in the lack of statewide and regional planning, leading to a system that fails communities on many different environmental, health, social and ethical levels. Smart growth policies work to create livable communities with planning strategies that encourage choice and limit adverse environmental impacts. NEXT STEPS 1) Establish a clear vision and strategy for Connecticut’s responsible growth 2) Rebalance the state/local revenue portfolio by shifting education costs from the towns to the state. 3) Increase the efficiency and coverage of the state’s bus and train transit operations under TSB initiatives. 4) Implement brownfields programs for redevelopment in urban areas. 5) The TSB should draft a report outlining its land use and transportation goals. 6) Strengthen the Office of Responsible Growth 7) Increase coordination and cooperation of all levels of government. page 18 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 LAND Farmland Preservation Connecticut is losing farmland at a faster rate than any state in the nation. Between 1997 and 2002 Connecticut lost 12% of its farmland to non-agricultural uses. Farmland loss has contributed to the misperception that agriculture is a dying industry in Connecticut. To the contrary, agriculture employs 50,000 people and has a $2.4 billion impact on our state economy. Connecticut’s rich combination of prime soils and moderate New England climate conditions make it ideal for agriculture. Connecticut’s 4200 working farms are multifunctional: they protect watersheds and prevent flooding, offer a safe habitat for wildlife, create scenic vistas and open space, and contribute to a vibrant tourism industry. Once nicknamed “The Provision State” because it supplied most of the food for the Continental Army during the Revolution, today the state is building a reputation for vineyards, cheese, orchards, and ornamental plants in addition to tobacco and milk. In 1978 the State of Connecticut established the Connecticut State Farmland Preservation Program in order to “preserve agricultural land for farming and food production purposes” (PA 78-232). This program is the State’s primary purchase of development rights (PDR) program through which the State has been able to permanently protect 31,025 acres of farmland on 222 farms. At this stage Connecticut has reached only 24% of its goal to protect 130,000 acres. Funding for farmland preservation has traditionally come from bonding for PDR programs. Between 2000 - 2005 the state spent less than $2 million annually in bonding for farmland preservation. With passage of the Community Investment Act, there is an estimated $3.5 million available for farmland preservation annually. Still, the current backlog of active applications has grown to more than 25 farms worth over $15 million as of the publication of this document. FOR MORE INFORMATION Jiff Martin Working Lands Alliance 860-683-4230 Bonnie Burr Connecticut Farm Bureau Association 860-298-4400 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Farmland Trust American Farmland Trust Housatonic Valley Association Connecticut Farm Bureau Association CROSS REFERENCES Community Investment Habitat Conservation and Wildlife Diversity Municipal Green Fund Open Space THE DEBATE The Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program and other PDR programs are historically either denied or granted low amounts of funding from the State’s Bond Commission. Even if funding is granted, many times that money is never released or allocated. Across the state towns compete for development projects to increase tax revenue and farms occupy the easiest land to build on. Therefore, real estate developers offer a high price and the town benefits from higher property taxes with new development. There is also a shrinking supply of farmland available to lease, making it difficult for new and existing farmers to find affordable farmland for their businesses. Additionally, if a farmer chooses to retire they can only afford to by selling their land at market value. The Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program is limited because every farm acquisition project is individually brought before the Bond Commission and that has dramatically encumbered the program and discourages the agriculture community from participating. The State has failed to make the necessary investments in farmland protection, losing an estimated 45,000 acres over the past five years. With a better bonding package the state can work to protect their estimated goal of acreage and Connecticut’s agricultural landscapes can be preserved. NEXT STEPS 1) The Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program must be funded at a higher level so that the growing backlog of applications to the program can be processed in a timely manner. 2) In order to process applications efficiently, the Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program needs bonding authorizations grouped together, as “lump sum bonding” versus reviewing each bonding project one at a time. | page 19 LAND Invasive Plants Across the nation, invasive species, including invasive plants, are second only to development in the threat they pose to native wildlife habitat. This is true in Connecticut where a number of plants that have been introduced from other regions or continents present grave threats to our native landscape. These invaders are able to out-compete the native plants that provide essential habitat for wildlife and reduce health and diversity of our native ecosystems. A good example is Purple Loosestrife, an attractive and popular plant, which outcompetes native wetland plants and reduces the diversity of wildlife populations that depend upon native plants for food and cover. Invasive species are introduced and spread into new areas by many means: gardening and landscaping, wind, water, and birds or other wildlife. Combating them requires many different approaches, including physical removal, education regarding the threat from and alternatives to these species, and restrictions on sales of certain plants. In 2003, the Connecticut General Assembly established an Invasive Plants Council to address this issue. The next year, based on the Council’s recommendation, the Legislature passed a bill banning the sale of 81 plants. This law was only a first step. Most of the banned plants were never grown or sold in Connecticut nurseries, while others that are of particular concern, and which are sold in large quantities, were not banned. For example, the sale of Japanese Barberry and Winged Euonymus, two of our worst invasives, has not been prohibited. FOR MORE INFORMATION Donna R. Ellis Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group 860-486-6448 David Sutherland The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter 860-344-0716 Ext. 317 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 Betty McLaughlin Connecticut Audubon 860-527-6750 RELATED WEBSITES Council on Environmental Quality Report on Invasive Plants Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group CROSS REFERENCES Habitat Conservation and Wildlife Diversity THE DEBATE Private land managers such as land trusts spend millions each year to eradicate invasive plants to protect their property. The nursery industry benefits from revenue derived from the sale of these “legal” invaders and further efforts to ban these species have been stalled by concerns about the economic impact of a ban. Also at issue is the ability of municipalities to enact local bans on the sale or planting of invasive plants in the absence of a statewide approach to banning the most pernicious species NEXT STEPS 1) Establish state funding to eradicate some existing populations of plants, provide rapid responses to prevent new outbreaks, educate growers and gardeners about invasive plants, and enable the Invasive Plants Council to develop strategies for assisting these municipal and private efforts. 2) Strengthen funding for the Invasive Plants Council to educate nursery owners and consumers of the threat posed by and alternatives to invasive plants. 3) Support scientific research to determine the invasiveness of cultivars (different forms or selections of the same plant) on the Connecticut list that are not currently banned. 4) Encourage phased-in bans of the species and/or cultivars described in #3 if research results show that these are invasive. page 20 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 LAND All-Terrain Vehicles People who want to use public parks, trails and other public lands have personal preferences. But some uses clash with others. As custodian of open space property, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is charged with managing these conflicts and providing a place for as many legitimate uses as are compatible with good environmental policies. A notable issue involves all-terrain vehicles (ATV). When ATVs are used in the wrong places, such as sensitive wetlands, the impacts to the land can be extremely damaging and often result in conflicts with other users, including hikers and equestrians. In 1986, the Connecticut General Assembly passed legislation that required the Department of Environmental Protection to review their lands and find appropriate places for ATV usage. Budget shortfalls have made it difficult for the DEP to comply with this legislative mandate, leaving the agency very little money for the development of parcels and enforcement of the law. In 2002 the DEP released a policy for ATVs on State lands. The policy proposes a procedure to identify organizations knowledgeable and responsible for ATV interests and invites them to submit proposals for ATV access that would be compatible with natural resource protection and use of a site by others. FOR MORE INFORMATION Adam R. Moore Connecticut Forest and Park Association 860-346-2372 David Sutherland The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter 860-344-0716 Ext. 317 CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection THE DEBATE The environmental community seeks universal registration of ATVs and does not welcome ATV use in state parks and forests. ATV riders are reluctant to register or display identification if they are not provided with places to ride on public lands. Both sides argue about where the funding is sourced from and whether new places should be designated. Not only is there a call for the state to acquire, or dedicate, safe places for ATV riding but also for the state to pass stronger laws governing ATV use, and provide adequate funding for the enforcement of relevant laws. NEXT STEPS 1) Establish two registration classes, farm and recreational, with fees of zero for farm use and fees at some appropriate level for recreational use. 2) Address the issue of vehicle identification, which can be accomplished with stickers or license plates. 3) Find places for ATVs to ride that are not on state park or other environmentally sensitive land. | page 21 LAND State Parks and State Forests Connecticut has a magnificent system of State Parks and State Forests that have been assembled over the past century. Beginning with the Meshomasic State Forest in 1903, Connecticut has assembled some 34,000 acres of land in 105 State Parks and some 150,000 acres in 30 State Forests. A number of these lands were purchased by the State of Connecticut or private land trusts, including the recent purchases that have been bonded through the Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust program. Many State Parks and State Forests were outright charitable gifts to the State of Connecticut, such as Gillette Castle State Park, Rocky Neck State Park, Peoples State Forest and more. With all parks and forests, and especially with those that were charitable gifts, the State of Connecticut has the obligation to exercise proper care and stewardship of these resources. For decades, the State has struggled to adequately fund the operating budgets for its State Parks and State Forests. Since 1989, Connecticut has had to consider park closings, conversion to “walk-in” facilities and other measures in response to diminishing funds. Admission, camping and rental fees have been raised, and although some of these funds are retained within the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Conservation Fund, funds for park stewardship have dropped to levels far short of need. In 2003, 17 State Park positions were abolished for lack of funds. The Division of Forestry has also suffered from a staffing shortage in the recent years, as have the Environmental Conservation Police Officers and the Field Support Division. In fact, a Council on Environmental Quality report from the 1980’s noted that State Parks and State Forests have suffered for support ever since the Park and Forest Commission was combined with other agencies to form DEP. The current State Parks Budget is roughly $10,000,000 out of a total DEP generally-funded budget of about $34,000,000. The DEP budget makes up 0.23 % of the total State Budget and from that the State Parks Budget is only 0.067 % of the entire state budget. This % is very low for 105 parks that are visited by millions of residents annually. To make matters worse, the 2010 plan for capital improvement to State Parks has been delayed to a 2020 plan. FOR MORE INFORMATION Adam R. Moore Connecticut Forest and Park Association 860-346-2372 Susan Mentser Friends of Connecticut State Parks RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Forest and Park Association Friends of Connecticut State Parks Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Outdoor Recreation CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Open Space THE DEBATE Park advocates have been seeking additional funding for State Parks for decades. In 2005, an effort to gain roughly $1.9 million in additional park funding failed at the very end of the legislative session, and the DEP was forced to rely even more heavily on a % of special fees, such as park admissions, for its general operating budget. These fees can vary substantially based on weather events, sales of hunting and fishing licenses, fluctuating timber values, and other items beyond the DEP’s control. In 2006, a similar effort to gain an additional $2.4 million resulted in an increase of $500,000 which partially restored $1.7 million that was diverted from the DEP’s budget the previous year. At the same time, DEP and others have looked at the possibility of supplementing park funding through private donations. Doing so is not an easy task, given that the DEP is not only a park and forest agency, but also a regulatory agency. If the DEP were to solicit and accept contributions from regulated entities, a conflict of interest could be created. There is also the matter that general appropriations could be cut by the same amount that private sources contribute. Private donations may be used to enhance park management, provided that ethical issues are addressed and that such funding is only supplemental. The stewardship of state parks and state forests is an obligation of the public sector, not of the private sector. NEXT STEPS 1) Advocate for annual $1.7 million increase in operational funding for State Parks and State Forests. 2) Promote the 2020 capital improvement plan that will enhance State Park facilities and recreational projects. 3) Investigate how private donations may properly be used to supplement the funding of State Parks, State Forests, trails, greenways and other conservation areas. HABITAT AND WILDLIFE Habitat Conservation and Wildlife Diversity Connecticut is one of the most densely populated states in the country. The overall threat to wildlife diversity and their habitat conservation is high. The state is also one of the wealthiest in the country, yet it ranks 48th in per capita spending on wildlife. More than 500 species of the state’s plants and animals are listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. The two greatest threats to wildlife in Connecticut are loss, degradation, or fragmentation of habitat due to land development and the threat posed by invasive species of plants and animals that crowd out the native species. Estuarine, shrubland, and grassland habitats are particularly threatened. Fragmentation also presents a serious long-term threat to forests. With the growing popularity of eco-tourism, ensuring healthy populations of birds and other wildlife is a good investment. A 2001 study by the US Fish and Wildlife Service found that an estimated 1.15 million Connecticut residents spend in excess of $500 million annually on watching wildlife in some form and the activities account for almost 8,000 jobs. Positive steps that have been taken to protect wildlife throughout the state include the completion of a State Wildlife Survey by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as a step in developing a federally mandated state wildlife conservation plan. The DEP’s wildlife programs including enhanced protection for the bald eagle have also benefited from the initiation of a Wildlife Conservation License Plate Program. Plus the General Assembly created the Connecticut Invasive Plants Council to formulate strategies to manage the cultivation or ban the sale of a number of invasive plants. FOR MORE INFORMATION Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 David Sutherland The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut 860-344-0716 Ext. 317 Donna R. Ellis Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group 860-486-6448 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group CROSS REFERENCES Invasive Plants Long Island Sound - Stewardship Open Space THE DEBATE Many conservationists believe that funding and legislation for habitat protection and biodiversity promotion is required. Opposition to these measures is sometimes mounted by developers, realtors, home builders, municipalities and large corporations. Promoting biodiversity can also involve management of invasive species or animals, such as deer. Animal rights groups have opposed efforts to reduce populations of these species, however maintaining healthy populations of wildlife is generally considered a smart strategy. NEXT STEPS A multi-pronged effort should include: 1) Increase funding for land conservation, openspace acquisition, and wildlife management including funding to identify and prioritize habitat areas. 2) Educate the public about the threat posed by invasive plants. 3) Create a Grasslands Council or other mechanism (possibly under the State Legislature’s Environment Committee) to study ways of protecting rapidly dwindling grassland and other habitats. 4) Continue protection and restoration of the Long Island Sound (which is critical habitat) and its shoreline including specific funding for land acquisition and stewardship. | page 23 LIGHT POLLUTION Overview Light pollution is defined as any adverse effect of artificial light including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste. Light pollution has serious adverse consequences for wildlife, especially for the flight migratory patterns of birds, and for human health with respect to serotonin levels that help prevent cancer. The effects of light pollution can be significantly reduced by shielding or redirection, so that direct light from outdoor fixtures is not visible from neighboring properties or from the sky. Energy consumption may also be reduced if outdoor lights are not directed into areas not intended for illumination. By directing the entire light downward and eliminating glare caused by light polluting fixtures, the wattage of a light source can often be reduced, while still achieving the same degree of visibility. Experts have also suggested that limiting the illumination of highways would prevent night glare and decrease potential roadway accidents. Over the years legislation regarding the prevention of light pollution has progressed. Starting in 2001, all street lights were required to be “full cutoff,” meaning that they focus light downward and eliminate direct light above 90º horizontal. In 2004, the Office of the State Building Inspector started implementing a new regulation that requires commercial buildings, excluding commercially owned one or two family dwellings, to have full cutoff fixtures for all exterior lighting. Enforcement of legislation that requires utility companies to shield all floodlights used for private property illumination recently started in October, 2005. As a result of these laws state agencies and municipalities are more aware of light pollution, but more can be done to prevent it. FOR MORE INFORMATION Leo Smith International Dark Sky Association – Connecticut Section 860-668-4000 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 RELATED WEBSITES The New England Light Pollution Advisory Group THE DEBATE Proponents claim that both humans and wildlife would benefit from legislation to prevent light pollution. Opposition has come primarily from the electrical lighting manufacturers who have invested in certain types of products and fixtures. They are concerned that major changes in state policy and lighting requirements could impact their business. Education of public officials remains the top challenge in passing any significant laws or regulations regarding night lighting. Different agencies and communities are concerned for public safety if lighting is reduced. With energy costs on the rise, officials might be more receptive to removing or retrofitting streetlights when data can show public safety will not be affected. NEXT STEPS 1) Establish standards for municipal streetlights regarding maximum wattage levels. 2) Encourage a new utility rate for partial night lighting in cases where low traffic volume and past accident history do not support a need for streetlights remaining “on” after midnight. 3) Support public education to municipalities and residents regarding the effects of light pollution. page 24 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Overview The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines Environmental Justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of governmental programs and policies. In Connecticut, as in many other states, facilities that pose environmental risks, such as power plants and landfills, are not distributed evenly around the state. Some communities bear more risks than others. For example, an analysis by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of the distribution of ten types of potential environmental hazards in the state concluded that “With one notable exception, Connecticut residents who are members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those living below the federal poverty line live in towns with anywhere from 15% to 20% more potential environmentally hazardous sources than whites or those living above the federal poverty level.” Communities that are overburdened with environmental hazards tend to have more environmental health problems. The DEP established an environmental justice (equity) policy in 1993 that has substantially improved permit notification and environmental enforcement in urban communities, but it does not have the force of law. Nor do current laws allow the DEP, Department of Public Utility Control, and Siting Council to consider how many other polluting facilities are in a neighborhood when deciding whether a new facility can be located there. Thus, new power plants or waste transfer stations have recently been sited in already overburdened neighborhoods in Stamford, New Haven, and Milford. Furthermore, state regulatory authorities generally do not require that other older, less efficient facilities be upgraded in order to lower pollution in overburdened communities. FOR MORE INFORMATION Dr. Mark Mitchell Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice 860-548-1133 Sharon Lewis Hartford Citizens in Action 860-287-0144 RELATED WEBSITES Department of Environmental Protection Environmental Justice Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CROSS REFERENCES Diesel Emissions Smart Growth THE DEBATE The best effort to date for environmental justice legislation in Connecticut occurred in 2006, highlighting the need for environmental enforcement in urban communities. Unfortunately the lack of public education has set environmental justice as a low priority. Some opponents of the legislation question whether environmental justice policies are anti-development and could deny a town a needed facility or that the policies are only geared toward low-income neighborhoods. The policies proposed do not apply to all facility types, but only to eleven specific types of polluting facilities. However, environmental justice applies to any community regardless of socio-economic status. Legislation for environmental justice is designed to promote fairness and better solutions to reducing pollution within Connecticut’s communities. NEXT STEPS 1) Connecticut needs a law allowing regulatory agencies to consider the number of people exposed to, and the cumulative effects of, multiple local pollution sources when new projects are proposed. 2) State agencies should develop regulations to reduce the burden of pollution in overburdened communities. 3) Regulatory agencies should provide more enforcement where there are more violations, thus providing people equal protection from environmental hazard. 4) The community notification provisions of the DEP’s environmental equity policy need to be made enforceable and put into law. 5) Federal Presidential Executive Order 12898 and legislation in Alabama, Arkansas, and California can provide guidance, but Connecticut needs its own environmental justice laws. | page 25 TOXICS Lawn-Care Pesticides Citizens in Connecticut are often exposed to pesticides in their homes, at their places of work and even at school. There are numerous health risks related to the use of pesticides. Many pesticides are carcinogenic, some are neurotoxic and others are harmful to fetuses. Young children and the fetuses of pregnant women are particularly at risk because of their developing nervous systems and high metabolisms that absorb chemicals faster than adults. Connecticut citizens suffer from extremely high rates of cancers compared to other states. Because of these high cancer rates, citizens of Connecticut should work to reduce as many of their toxic exposures as possible, including exposure to lawn care pesticides that are used primarily for purely cosmetic reasons. FOR MORE INFORMATION Nancy Alderman Environment and Human Health, Inc. 203-248-6582 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Pesticide Management Program CROSS REFERENCES Drinking Water Source Protection In 2005, the General Assembly passed a ground breaking law (Public Act 05-525) that prohibits the use of lawn-care pesticides on the grounds of elementary schools and children’s day-care centers. The new law allows Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods to be used on schools’ athletic fields until 2008, when the fields must then go organic. Exceptions of pesticide use can be made for treating stinging insects or ticks, or other situations where public health or welfare is endangered. This law does not apply to high schools and therefore the present law does not protect older students. THE DEBATE Advocates working to ban lawn-care pesticides, including healthcare professionals, concerned parents and organic farmers, claim that there is a high risk to public health and wildlife diversity when these chemicals spread through the environment. The industry surrounding the production and use of lawn-care pesticides includes chemical companies, lawn care businesses and facility grounds crews. They argue that restricting the use of lawn-care pesticides would be a hardship and have countered by promoting IPM methods that still allows pesticides to be used. Connecticut does not license IPM applicators and the state has only a few experts who can enforce IPM methods to ensure that applicators are using pesticides only when necessary. Therefore, establishing better regulations on the use of lawn-care pesticides makes sense. NEXT STEPS Expand the 2005 law to include a ban on pesticides on the grounds of Pre-kindergarten through 8th grades so that all children in the state will have the same protections. page 26 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 TOXICS Mercury Every lake, river, and stream in Connecticut is contaminated with mercury from trash incinerators, power plants, and sewage treatment facilities. Mercury, a neurotoxin, is found in common household products like thermostats, fluorescent light bulbs, thermometers, cosmetics, detergents, and specialty items like automotive switches, laboratory and blood pressure measurement devices, high intensity discharge lamps and dental fillings. When these items are discarded and incinerated, mercury is released into the air and then re-deposited on the land and in the water. This contamination is then absorbed by plants and animals and passes along the food chain to humans because it does not break down naturally in the environment. Every one of Connecticut’s fresh water waterways has a fish consumption advisory because residents are most commonly exposed to mercury by eating contaminated fish. Human exposures to mercury, at even low levels, can permanently damage the brain and nervous system and cause behavioral changes. The Connecticut General Assembly recognized the serious environmental risks of mercury when it passed the Mercury Reduction and Education Act in 2002. This forward-looking “zero mercury” law seeks to prevent pollution before it occurs with phase-out bans and requires a labeling system for current mercury containing products. Efforts to weaken the law have been made with proposed product exemptions including dental fillings, button cell batteries and stadium lighting. Recently, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has concluded that dental mercury amalgams are not “products” and therefore are not addressed in the law. If dental mercury fillings exist in patients then the fillings need to be disposed of appropriately as hazardous waste. Likewise when waste from any mercury producing manufacturer, including the computer industry, soap and detergent makers, and auto, lamp and thermostat manufacturers, is not disposed of appropriately mercury will continue to contaminate the local land, air and water. FOR MORE INFORMATION Betty McLaughlin Connecticut Audubon 860-527-6750 Dr. Mark Mitchell Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice 860-548-1133 Sheila Dormody Clean Water Action 860-232-6232 CROSS REFERENCES Electronic Waste THE DEBATE Despite efforts over the years to ban all mercury products, exposure still occurs. Connecticut’s residents are subject to mercury contamination because of product exemptions, such as dental fillings, and improper disposal of older products containing mercury. Still, opponents to a strict ban on mercury containing products suggest it will limit their options for manufacturing and limit the options of products for consumers. NEXT STEPS 1) The state’s Department of Environmental Protection should be given adequate resources to enforce phase-outs, collection systems, disposal methods and bans. 2) Determine which mercury products deserve exemptions from the law. | page 27 WASTE AND RECYCLING State Solid Waste Management Plan In 2005, approximately 3.8 million tons of trash was collected in Connecticut. That number is estimated to grow and more needs to be done to reduce our solid waste. The proposed 20-year State Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) released in July 2006 by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is important because it sets Connecticut’s solid waste management policy. By statute, the plan must manage the solid waste from electronic equipment waste, recycling (including PET#1 and HDPE#2 plastics), composting of yard waste or vegetable matter, bulky waste recycling, resource recovery or waste-to-energy plants, incineration, landfilling and source reduction. Source reduction means not creating waste in the first place by changing production and purchasing decisions. The projections in the SWMP of the amount of waste expected to be generated in the state over the next 20 years guide DEP decisions to permit expanded and new solid waste disposal facilities. By statute, the DEP cannot permit any additional waste-to-energy, mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) composting or ash or MSW landfill capacity unless it determines that the capacity is needed for Connecticut. Although Connecticut was one of the first states to mandate recycling and has adopted extensive source reduction legislation, the 2005 source reduction/recycling rate was only 30%; this rate has not risen for several years and is well below that of some other states. The new plan indicates that unless the source reduction/recycling rate rises to 49%, there will be insufficient disposal capacity in Connecticut for MSW and construction and demolition debris. The state will then have to ship its waste out of state or create new disposal capacity in state. New instate facilities will be difficult to site and will emit CO2, adding to global warming. A further complication is that as the contractual and bonding arrangements that created the existing waste-to-energy facilities expire, the state’s disposal facilities may pass completely into private hands. FOR MORE INFORMATION Lois Hager Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 860-236-5442 Betty McLaughlin Connecticut Audubon 860-527-6750 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection CROSS REFERENCES Beverage Container Recycling Electronic Waste Global Warming THE DEBATE The state needs to commit the necessary staffing and funding to increase its source reduction/recycling rate to 49% so that additional disposal capacity is not needed. In recent years, there has been little enthusiasm for enforcement and even less for appropriate funding and staffing levels. Additional funding would allow enforcement of existing source reduction and recycling laws, and extensive public education about the importance of creating less waste. If the state does not reach the source reduction/recycling goal, then Connecticut will have to depend on outof-state disposal facilities for the waste that cannot be handled in state. The 1991 SWMP relied on in-state solid waste facilities. The new SWMP has the same goal, but acknowledges out-of-state disposal capacity that could be utilized for Connecticut waste. More than 80% of Connecticut’s construction and demolition debris and oversized MSW is already disposed out of state. If Connecticut decided to depend on out-of-state disposal capacity, there would be less incentive to increase the source reduction/recycling rate, and the state would relinquish considerable control over its long-range solid waste management system and costs. Even if there were sufficient instate disposal capacity, Connecticut would still have to decide whether or not it should depend on private entities for MSW disposal capacity or try to retain public control. Connecticut’s MSW disposal infrastructure was largely created by public entities and now most of the municipal landfills are closed. The bonds that funded the waste-to-energy facilities are almost paid off and the contracts between resource recovery facilities and municipalities will soon expire. NEXT STEPS 1) Adopt and publicize the draft SWMP. 2) Create a dedicated Source Reduction/Recycling Fund sufficient to permanently fund and staff municipal and state source reduction and recycling programs. 3) Enforce existing source reduction legislation relating to toxics, purchasing and packaging. 4) Require the recycling of PET#1 and HDPE#2 plastic containers, electronics, magazines and commercial organics. 5) Add non-carbonated drink bottles to the beverage container deposit law, and increase the deposit. 6) Prohibit the disposal of unprocessed construction and demolition waste and oversized MSW and require that bulky waste landfills be lined. WASTE AND RECYCLING Beverage Container Recycling One of the high priority strategies of the 2006 draft Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) is updating Connecticut’s beverage container deposit law enacted in 1978. Originally envisioned as a litter control measure, the successes of the “bottle bill” have been far-reaching. Connecticut’s law helped create a flourishing aluminum and PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) plastics aftermarkets nationwide. The deposit system ensures a steady stream of clean recycled material to end users. Because the deposit system is privately funded, recycling is not interrupted when government budgets are cut. The beverage container deposit incentive system pays for itself. Over 1.5 billion bottles and cans of carbonated beverages are sold annually in Connecticut. Of these, nearly 70% are returned. Without redemption recycling, municipalities and the state would have to fund widespread litter cleanup, disposal, and materials processing, including ever-increasing waste transportation costs. Budgets are limited and recycling competes everything else a town must fund, including schools, road maintenance and senior citizen centers. The SWMP proposes to update the beverage container deposit law to include the sports drinks, bottled water, iced teas, and other non-carbonated beverages that were not marketed in 1978. If these beverage container types are not included, more and more recyclable material will be tossed into the garbage and local municipalities will have to pay for the clean-up and disposal. The SWMP also recommends that the state escheat unclaimed deposits as abandoned property. Deposits that go unclaimed when beverage containers are not returned for redemption should be treated the same way as bank accounts whose rightful owners cannot be located. Unclaimed deposits amount to about $25 million a year. In effect, these unclaimed deposits, which are kept by the beer and soda distributors, are a state-initiated subsidy for these companies. Effective solid waste management is in itself sound public policy, but the implications for climate change that are influenced by our solid waste choices make it that much more imperative. We must aggressively pursue options that maximize energy conservation and resource conservation and minimize the emissions of greenhouse gases. FOR MORE INFORMATION Betty McLaughlin Connecticut Audubon 860-527-6750 Christopher Phelps ConnPIRG/ Environment Connecticut 860-233-7554 Kim O’Rourke Connecticut Recyclers Coalition 860-344-3526 CROSS REFERENCES Global Warming Solid Waste Management Plan THE DEBATE Many support the expansion of the ‘bottle bill’ and comment that inclusion of noncarbonated beverages will increase recycling and relieve local communities from having to pay for the system through their property taxes. The National Soft Drink Association, grocery stores and the wine and alcoholic beverage industries have fought successfully against expanding the reach of Connecticut’s redemption recycling law. Instead of absorbing the costs of managing their container waste, they would prefer that taxpayers bear the burden via curbside recycling programs or with increased fees for waste removal. Grocers complain that they should not have to bear the burden and mess of redemption centers. The redemption recycling program can alleviate budget pressures for municipalities and towns and will help raise Connecticut’s source reduction/recycling percent to suggested SWMP levels. NEXT STEPS Connecticut beverage container deposit legislation needs to be updated. 1) Deposits should be required on non-carbonated beverage containers. 2) The five-cent deposit is outdated and should be increased. 3) The handling fees wholesalers pay to retailers and redemption centers to process empties should be increased and equalized. These fees have not been increased in twenty years, making it virtually impossible for new redemption center businesses to be created. | page 29 4) Unclaimed bottle and can deposits should be returned to the state. WASTE AND RECYCLING Electronic Waste Electronics production is one of the fastest-growing manufacturing industries in the world. The products developed are purchased frequently because technology is constantly changing and many times consumers want to upgrade. With the ease of purchasing power also comes the downfall of creating unwanted waste. Three billion consumer electronics products will be scrapped in the next 10 years including 200 million televisions. Consumer electronics products, including televisions and computers, may contain harmful substances such as mercury and lead that may be released into the environment if they are dumped into landfills or burned. Yet less than 15% of electronic waste (e-waste) is reused or recycled, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. There are multiple e-waste recycling models for Connecticut to consider. California enacted legislation in 2003 that sets a fee of $6 to $10 on sales of computers and televisions to finance a statewide electronics recycling system. In its first year, California recycled over 64 million pounds of electronic products. The state is projecting that it will recycle over 100 million pounds in 2006. The National Center for Recycling reported that administrative costs to operate the program were less than 10% of the $61 million of revenue generated. The California program is referred to as an Advance Recovery Fee (“ARF”) model because consumers pay a recycling fee upon purchasing a new computer or television. Maine, Washington and Maryland have passed legislation using a manufacturer financing approach. Each program is slightly different, but they all require the manufacturers to share in the responsibility of disposal. Maine’s program started in 2006, Maryland’s was passed in 2005 and expires in 2010 and Washington’s is scheduled to go on line in January 2009. The Northeast Recycling Council (“NERC”) and the Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference (CSG/ERC) has developed model legislation that would require manufacturers to either pay a fee based on a % of their sales of computers and televisions, by weight, or set up their own take-back programs as part of a state-wide electronics end-of-life management system. Under the NERC – CSG/ERC proposed legislation, states would have the option of assigning responsibility for program management (including the collection of manufacturer fees) to a state agency – such as the Department of Environmental Protection – or to a regional, multi-state organization or compact. FOR MORE INFORMATION C.J. May, President Connecticut Recyclers Coalition Frank Marella Electronic Manufacturers’ Coalition for Responsible Recycling c/o Sharp Electronics Corporation 201-529-9408 RELATED WEBSITES California Integrated Waste Management Board Maine Department of Environmental Protection Maryland Department of the Environment Washington Department of Ecology Northeast Recycling Council National Electronics Recycling Infrastructure Clearinghouse A Study of the State-by-State E-Waste Patchwork CROSS REFERENCES Mercury Solid Waste Management Plan THE DEBATE Our challenge is to find a program that works for Connecticut and have it enacted into law. Some of the more difficult issues include how the program will be funded, how to deal with orphan waste from no longer existing manufacturers, and how material will be collected. Stakeholder groups have very different opinions about which program will be right for Connecticut. They need to agree on a basic legislative blueprint and work cooperatively towards its enactment. Connecticut has neither a strategy nor an infrastructure to deal with e-waste, nor does it have a financing mechanism to create and/or subsidize effective e-waste collection/recycling efforts. The cost to recycle consumer electronics in a typical municipal program is on the order of $200-$300/ton. Connecticut recyclers and municipalities urge adoption of an economically and environmentally sustainable system to promote collection and recycling at the least possible cost NEXT STEPS The Department of Environmental Protection and the Connecticut General Assembly should press for adoption of comprehensive e-waste legislation, which includes stable funding for collection and recycling of electronic products. page 30 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 TRANSPORTATION Diesel Pollution Exposure to diesel pollution is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Connecticut’s citizens, particularly children, the elderly, and those living in densely populated areas with concentrated commercial and industrial traffic. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified forty hazardous compounds in diesel exhaust, fifteen of which are considered likely to cause cancer. Tiny particles in diesel pollution inhaled deep in human lungs, can trigger asthma and heart attacks as well. Fairfield, New Haven and Hartford Counties all rank within the 93rd percentile of counties in the nation for risks from diesel exhaust and New Haven and Fairfield Counties are the only counties in New England that fail to meet Federal air quality standards for fine particle pollution. Reducing diesel emissions in Connecticut will reduce adverse health impacts, particularly among children and the elderly who are most vulnerable to the effects of diesel particulate matter. It will also reduce corresponding costs of health damages born by the state’s economy. Since diesel soot contributes to global warming, tackling diesel emissions will help Connecticut meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals as well. Federal regulations will reduce the pollution from new diesel trucks and buses sold after 2007, and new bulldozers, excavators, and other off-road equipment sold after 2008. Older engines are not covered by the rule, however, and many will last thirty years or more, so Connecticut will continue to suffer high rates of diesel pollution for decades to come. Retrofit emission control systems can be installed on older engines, reducing diesel pollution by up to 90%. The retrofit emissions systems are readily available today but have been installed so far on only a few bus fleets in the state. In the past, one of the barriers to installing retrofits was that they required the use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. However, new EPA rules requiring ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel took effect on October 15, 2006. In the 2005 legislative session, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Special Act 05-7, “An Act Establishing a Connecticut Clean Diesel Plan” by a near-unanimous vote. The Act directed the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to develop a comprehensive implementation strategy for reducing diesel emissions by approximately 75% over 10 years. Specifically the Act called for strategies to maximize emissions reductions by 2010 from school buses, transit buses and construction equipment working on state projects. FOR MORE INFORMATION Alice Liddell Environment Northeast 203-495-8224 Roger Smith Clean Water Action 860-232-6232 Mark Mitchell Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice 860-548-1133 Charles Rothenberger Connecticut Fund for the Environment 203-787-0646 Nancy Alderman Environment and Human Health, Inc. 203-248-6582 CROSS REFERENCES Environmental Justice Global Warming Municipal Green Fund Transportation and Land Use THE DEBATE Both inner city and rural communities complain about the environmental and public health impacts of diesel emissions from Connecticut’s roadways. Some fleet owners complain about the financial costs they face when updating and retrofitting emission control systems and argue that the cleaner 2007 model engines will eventually replace today’s dirty diesel vehicles. However, fleet turnover will not yield full benefits until 2030, and the opportunity to prevent a projected 100,000 premature deaths from diesel pollution will be lost. NEXT STEPS 1) Follow through on the promise of Special Act 05-7 and reduce pollution from priority fleets. 2) Require and pay for installation of equipment to keep pollution out of the school bus passenger cabins and to reduce school bus tailpipe emissions by 2010. 3) Ensure that all diesel equipment used in largescale state funded construction projects uses ultra low sulfur diesel fuel and best available pollution control technology. | page 31 4) Retrofit emission control systems or replace all Connecticut Transit buses to reduce pollution by 90% by 2010. 5) Create a dedicated fund to defray costs of pollution control equipment for other priority fleets. TRANSPORTATION Clean Cars Connecticut’s communities have long suffered from some of the nation’s worst air quality. Each year, Connecticut experiences a significant number of “smog days” that threaten the health of its residents, especially children, the elderly, and those with lung ailments. The American Lung Association has given Connecticut a grade of ‘F’ for our poor air quality. Cars, trucks and buses are the single largest source of air pollution in Connecticut, generating as much as 40% of smog forming toxic greenhouse gas emissions. FOR MORE INFORMATION Charles Rothenberger Connecticut Fund for the Environment 203-787-0646 Ext. 110 Christopher Phelps ConnPIRG/ Environment Connecticut 860-233-7554 CROSS REFERENCES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Global Warming Transportation and Land Use Connecticut took decisive action in recent years to address its air pollution problems caused by passenger vehicles by passing important pieces of Clean Cars legislation. In 2004 the state adopted California’s tough automobile tailpipe emissions standards for new cars, SUVs and light trucks beginning with the 2008 model year. In 2006, Connecticut became the second state in the nation to require labels to be affixed to all new vehicles starting with 2009 models. The labeling system will educate consumers about the greenhouse gases their new vehicles emit and could become a model for the nation. The transportation sector remains the state’s single largest and fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Passenger cars and trucks alone account for more than 60% of tailpipe emissions. A study by the Council on Environmental Quality shows that Connecticut residents continue to increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person each year. While greenhouse gas reductions from the tailpipe offer significant relief, these gains will be reversed if we continue to drive millions of more miles each year. THE DEBATE Supporters of the state’s legislation on clean cars agree that recently established policies are necessary to help reduce automobile emissions and ensure better air quality. However the arguments from auto manufacturers are the same from year to year against clean car legislation: the technology doesn’t exist; it would cost too much to comply; the public doesn’t want it; and finally the prospect of economic ruin for the industry if they are forced to improve their product. In actuality, new vehicle standards have been adopted and the auto industry is surviving. Connecticut residents realize that cleaner, more efficient cars are possible and are willing to demand that auto manufacturers do better to protect their public health and welfare. NEXT STEPS 1) The Department of Environmental Protection must implement its recently adopted Greenhouse Gas labeling program for motor vehicles, ensure implementation of the clean car standards, and provide consumer education on purchasing fuel efficient cars. 2) The state must move to promote an aggressive transportation strategy that adheres to smart growth principles that will encourage greater availability and use of mass transit systems and reduce VMT. 3) The state should continue to explore financial and other incentives to encourage the purchase of cleaner vehicles by continuing the sales tax exemption for qualified hybrid vehicles, exempting such vehicles from local personal property tax, and exploring the possibility of a broad-based greenhouse gas motor vehicle feebate program. 4) The state should explore the possibility of implementing VMT reduction programs such as mileage-based insurance. page 32 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 TRANSPORTATION Transportation and Land Use Creation of a sustainable set of transportation and land-use reforms and investments is the key to our environmental and economic future. Collectively, our cars and trucks contribute a large percentage of global warming carbon dioxide emissions along with the most toxic soot and smog forming pollution. Business leaders have repeatedly warned that increasingly congested roadways and freight corridors threaten to turn Connecticut into an economic cul-de-sac, cut off from a vibrant regional economy. A study by the Council on Environmental Quality shows that Connecticut residents continue to increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person each year. This increase in drive time contributes to public health and global warming problems. Over the last two years, the governor and legislative leaders have worked together and appropriated $3 billion to largely transit-oriented transportation projects. This legislation directs our Department of Transportation (DOT) to purchase new commuter rail cars, build new rail maintenance yards, begin commuter service from New Haven to Springfield and fast-tracks a rapid transit bus-way in the New Britain area. The money also supports the Transportation Strategy Board (TSB), which has been placed within the Office of Policy and Management where it is responsible for the policies and planning of Connecticut’s transportation infrastructure. Investing in expanded clean transit bus service and new commuter rail cars is energy efficient, will reduce diesel and global warming pollution and cut congestion. FOR MORE INFORMATION Curt Johnson Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 Ext. 111 Joe McGee Business Council of Fairfield County 203-359-3220 Ext. 305 Christopher Phelps ConnPIRG/Environment Connecticut 860-233-7554 CROSS REFERENCES Diesel Pollution Global Warming Smart Growth THE DEBATE The response of the Connecticut DOT to congestion has often been simply to build more highways or enlarge existing ones. Experience is showing that this is a self defeating strategy if the goal is to move people and goods efficiently and with reduced environmental and global warming impacts. Increased highway capacity results in increased highway use. Connecticut needs to reduce individual VMT and look for more sustainable transportation options. NEXT STEPS 1) The legislature should continue to invest in the TSB and a sustainable transportation vision, emphasizing transit investments, roadway maintenance and smart transportation-land use planning. 2) Bus transit services should be expanded. 3) The DOT should encourage collaboration for transportation corridor land use planning. 4) The DOT should promote investments around existing or planned transit stations and highway corridors. | page 33 WATER Water Management Management, or stewardship, of water resources has two aspects: assuring ample quantities of water and assuring adequate quality of water. The aim is top-quality drinking water and healthy rivers, lakes, aquifers and wetlands. Our state is blessed with a high annual rainfall, and has traditionally been a leader in protecting water resources. Now, as the value of water worldwide has risen sharply, we have become more sensitive to the need to take new protective measures. Even water-rich Connecticut faces conflicts between fish and faucet, and between development and drinking-water aquifers. THE DEBATE Connecticut lacks a rational, comprehensive system for managing its extraordinarily FOR MORE INFORMATION Margaret Miner Rivers Alliance of Connecticut 860-361-9349 Eric Hammerling Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA) 860-658-4442 Megan Hearne Connecticut River Watershed Council (CRWC) 860-704-0057 Lynn Werner Housatonic Valley Association 860-672-6678 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Connecticut Department of Public Health CROSS REFERENCES Clean Waterways Connecticut Environmental Protection Act Council on Environmental Quality Drinking Water Source Protection Municipal Green Fund valuable water resources. Research, planning, management, regulation and enforcement are fragmented among several state agencies (the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Public Health, Office of Policy and Management, and Department of Public Utility Control). In addition, authority is fragmented vertically among local, regional and state officials. In 2001, the Connecticut General Assembly created a Water Planning Council (WPC) consisting of the agencies mentioned above. The WPC thus far has achieved a few modest improvements in water management, but non-agency stakeholders (environmental groups, water utilities, and others) still maintain that the management system is deeply flawed. For example, Connecticut has over 50 rivers impaired by diversions of water for private use. Rules for sharing water are typically first-come first-served, with no provisions for allocating water according to societal and ecological needs. Enforcement of water quality regulations, including protections for the lands around drinking water sources, appears to be weakening and more needs to be done to protect this precious resource. NEXT STEPS 1) In 2006, the General Assembly’s Energy & Technology Committee offered a bill aimed at changing and strengthening the WPC. It was opposed by the agencies and failed, but a new effort, with broader support, is needed and expected. 2) Public Act 05-142 required the Department of Environmental Protection to develop a new stream flow regulation for all state waterways. The regulation is presently being drafted by the department and stakeholder work groups. 3) The 2006 bond package that did not come to a vote included $500,000 for much-needed science studies of river basins, as well as $50 million for the all-important task of sewage treatment facility upgrades through the underfunded Clean Water Fund. Funding for these projects will be sought again in 2007. page 34 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 WATER Drinking Water Source Protection Connecticut has approximately 4,000 public drinking water sources, managed by almost 3,000 public water systems that supply drinking water to 2.8 million people. The remainder of residents draw water from private wells. Most public water supply is from rivers im-pounded into reservoirs, although groundwater wells are also a significant source. Wells in sand-and-gravel aquifers, typically found along rivers, are highly important for public and private water supply; however, most private wells are in bedrock aquifers. The responsibility for protecting highquality, potable water is divided among the Department of Public Health (DPH) under the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under the Clean Water Act; and the Office of Policy and Management, whose state Plan of Conservation and Development aims to discourage development that could put water resources at risk. At the local level, sanitation departments and land-use commissions also play key roles in source protection. In 1977, Connecticut became a national leader in protecting drinking water by passing a law that prohibits or limits development on watershed lands owned by water companies (called Class I and II lands). This provides good but incomplete protection, since most land around drinking water sources is not owned by water companies. Connecticut is one of two states that will not permit any water that has received a wastewater discharge to be a source for drinking water. Recently, the state has taken a number of other steps to protect drinking water, especially groundwater. It banned the water contaminant MTBE from gasoline; banned on-site sewage-treatment plants in source-water watersheds; required applicants seeking to build in source-water watersheds to notify the water company and DPH so that they can make appropriate recommendations and it developed a model regional supply and source-protection program involving the towns of Groton, Ledyard, Montville, Norwich, Waterford and Preston, working with DPH and Groton Utilities. This program, called the drinking water quality management plan (DWQMP) is a grass roots initiative to produce a locally developed drinking water source protection plan, intended to provide consistent and proactive methodologies to protect public health while balancing the need for economic development with source protection. Connecticut’s two major source-protection programs of the past few years were developed by the DEP and DPH, respectively. The DEP developed aquifer protection regulations for public drinking water wells serving over 1,000 customers. These regulations, adopted after a 14-year struggle, provide important if modest protections for water supply wells. Unfortunately, the regulations do not make recommendations that apply to residential developments and have focused on reducing commercial/industrial impacts in aquifer protection areas. The Source Water Assessment Program run by DPH shows that approximately 80% of the state’s public drinking water sources have a low to moderate susceptibility to potential sources of contamination. Not surprisingly, the susceptibility appears to be directly related to land use: the density of potential contaminant sources, the intensity of land development and the absence of local source protection regulations. FOR MORE INFORMATION Margaret Miner Rivers Alliance of Connecticut 860-361-9349 Alicia Betty Trust for Public Land 203-777-7367 RELATED WEBSITES Housatonic Valley Association Department of Public Health Drinking Water Section Source Water Assessments Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Resources and Land Reuse CROSS REFERENCES Lawn-Care Pesticides Non-Point Source Pollution Utility/Watershed Lands Water Management THE DEBATE Today the greatest threats to clean water arise from increasing development pressures and sprawl. Woods and fields, which filter and clean water are being replaced by pavement, buildings, lawns and golf courses. This pattern of growth threatens to foul water sources with dirty stormwater runoff and leaky fuel tanks; it diminishes the natural recharge of aquifers that occurs in woods and fields; it increases the presence of pesticides in all water bodies; and it can cause heavy runoff that overwhelms private and public sewage treatment systems. Connecticut’s residents, institutions, businesses, including utility companies and THE DEBATE continues on the next page | page 35 WATER Drinking Water Source Protection state agencies are in favor of clean drinking water. However rifts between those responsible for planning and enforcement of clean water policies are starting to stall projects for clean water protection. Given the ongoing pressure to develop open lands and the increasing scarcity (and rising price) of good drinking water worldwide, protection of source water is likely to be a high-priority and controversial policy issue for the foreseeable future. NEXT STEPS At this time several approaches are being considered. 1) Assist the Department of Pubic Health in helping to develop more regional source-protection plans based on the DWQMP program. FOR MORE INFORMATION Eric Hammerling Farmington River Watershed Association 860-658-4442 Lynn Werner Housatonic Valley Association 860-672-6678 4) Extend protection of water resources through proactive measures, such as delivering more grants for the conservation of watershed lands 5) Increase DPH review of projects planned in drinking water watersheds. 2) Expand the current ban on cosmetic pesticide use on grounds of day-care establishments and elementary schools up through eighth grade. 3) Reduce applications of pesticides in state waters. Become a member! Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06105 860-236-5442 page 36 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 WATER Non-point Source Pollution Non-point source pollution, also called stormwater runoff, is now Connecticut’s most significant source of waterways and wetlands pollution. As rainwater and snowmelt travel across the landscape, they pick up sediments, excess nutrients (fertilizers, sewage), bacteria, litter and such toxic materials as heavy metals and pesticides. The General Assembly recognized the threat to the environment of non-point source pollution in 1977 when it amended the General Statutes to allow municipalities to include provisions to control soil erosion and sediment (E&S) in their town’s regulations. In 1983 the state went further by requiring towns to amend their planning and zoning regulations to include E&S control and to certify control plans when more than one-half acre of land was to be disturbed by development. The Act also charged Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the Council on Soil and Water Conservation, municipalities and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to establish and implement a statewide coordinated erosion and sediment control program. The Federal/State Phase I and II Stormwater Management regulations require municipalities to implement E&S and stormwater management to prevent non-point source pollution. Municipal staff and volunteer commissioners generally do not have the level of training needed to make appropriate E&S and stormwater management decisions. Meanwhile applications are increasing to develop land with wetlands, steep slopes, and poor soil. These are precisely the parcels of land that need the most technical attention to prevent erosion, contain polluted sediment and reduce the potential impact of stormwater on public health. FOR MORE INFORMATION Tom ODell Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District 860-399-1807 Suellen Kozey McCuin Council on Soil and Water Conservation 860-767-9594 Lynn Werner Housatonic Valley Association 860-672-6678 CROSS REEFERENCE Drinking Water Source Protection Municipal Green Fund THE DEBATE Well-funded applicants/developers who can hire experts to testify on the soundness of E&S and stormwater management plans often have an advantage in the decision and enforcement process. Towns often lack the technical, legal and financial means, or the will, to enforce a development permit’s “Conditions of Approval” or to go to court when an applicant appeals a decision. Commissioners and municipal staff need more training in how to use the Connecticut E&S Guidelines, weigh expert testimony at public hearings and conduct on-site enforcement of “Conditions of Approval.” Conservation Districts have the technical staff and experience to train and otherwise assist municipalities, but not the funding or certification authority to ensure that E&S and stormwater management plans follow the 2002 guidelines and are carried out once development is initiated. NEXT STEPS 1) Complete development of the Council on Soil and Water Conservation training program. 2) Identify funding sources to implement a statewide continuing education training program for municipal officials, commissioners and professional engineers. 3) Enforce the certification requirement for soil erosion and sediment plans. 4) Assist municipalities to carry out Phase I and II Stormwater Management regulations. | page 37 WATER Clean Waterways We all deserve clean rivers and a clean Long Island Sound, but every year billions of gallons of raw sewage continue to flow into our waterways and vast portions of the Long Island Sound are starved for oxygen. Cleaning up our waterways depends on a consistent state investment in the Clean Water Fund, which finances much needed sewage system upgrades throughout the state. That investment in the Clean Water Fund has dried up in recent years and progress in restoring our waters is grinding to a halt. At the current rate, the state goal of sewage-free water by 2020 will be nearly a century late and the vision of restored Long Island Sound water quality by 2014 will be delayed by decades. FOR MORE INFORMATION Leah L. Schmalz Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 Ext. 121 Margaret Miner Rivers Alliance of Connecticut 860-361-9349 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Connecticut Department of Public Health CROSS REFERENCES Long Island Sound – Public versus Private Long Island Sound – Stewardship Non-Point Source Pollution Utility/Watershed Lands Water Management Water quality is further impacted as development in watersheds continues to grow. The forests that surround and purify our reservoirs, rivers and streams are also at risk. Safeguarding our forest legacy will assure that streams run pure and drinking water quality is protected for future generations. So far, Connecticut has passed laws protecting more than 100,000 acres of water-company owned lands surrounding these reservoirs. However, half of the forests that protect our drinking water reservoirs are not protected, and are threatened by increased development and diminishing open space funding. With new development, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) monitors compliance with stormwater general permits and nitrogen discharge general permits to help reduce the impacts to our watersheds. Lastly, the region’s premier asset, Long Island Sound, has magnificent coastal places that must either be protected or improved to ensure a lasting heritage in open space, water quality and ecologically productive systems. The Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative is looking to land acquisition, land conservation agreements, site planning, plan implementation, land and habitat management, public access improvements, site monitoring, and other activities to enhance and preserve natural resource-based recreation and ecological health and function. THE DEBATE The Legislature has significantly reduced funding for Clean Water general obligation bonds, focusing instead on major issues like road construction, transportation, and education programs. Municipalities are struggling to provide basic water treatment services and implementing stormwater regulations. The DEP has indicated that with restored funding the state can still meet nitrogen reduction goals from sewage system upgrades. NEXT STEPS 1) Restore funding for the Clean Water Fund to $157 million in 2007, $140 million in 2008 and $70-80 million/year in subsequent years. 2) Increase public education and awareness about the impact of combined sewer overflows, stormwater pollution, forest land protection, and coastal preservation. 3) The Depatment of Environmental Protection should closely monitor compliance with the stormwater general permit and the nitrogen discharge general permit. page 38 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 WATER Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Connecticut’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act of 1972 charges the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to develop model regulations to protect inland wetlands and watercourses, and charges towns with responsibility for adopting, implementing and enforcing such regulations. The act requires the DEP to develop and implement a training program for wetlands commissioners. At least one member of a town wetlands commission or staff is required to complete the training program and each commission must hold a meeting at least once annually to present the information received at the training program. However, failure to comply with training requirements does not affect the validity of actions by a commission. Towns were given the choice of appointing a new commission to implement and enforce their regulations or to assign that responsibility to an established land use agency. Most of Connecticut’s 169 towns now have separate inland wetlands and watercourses commissions, but 70 still combine this responsibility with that of their conservation commissions, while five towns have given inland wetlands responsibility to their planning and zoning commissions. Wetlands commissions, composed of town volunteers, review and make decisions on approximately 4500 increasingly complex development applications each year. The DEP conducts an annual comprehensive training program for the 2000-plus local volunteers who serve on commissions, but only about 20% complete the training—and new people with no mandate to receive training are added to commissions every year. The lack of commissioner education and training, the variability of volunteer commissioner experience, the inconsistency in updating local regulations as statutory amendments are passed, and towns’ level of support for enforcing regulations have resulted in town-to-town inland wetlands decisions that are not consistent statewide. At the same time, the DEP, which suffers from lack of staff and funding, cannot provide the oversight and support that it once did. FOR MORE INFORMATION Tom ODell Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District 860-399-1807 Lynn Werner Housatonic Valley Association 860-672-6678 Ann Letendre Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions 860-875-4623 RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Management Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions CROSS REFERENCES Inland Wetlands and Watercourses – Enforcement Non-Point Source Pollution THE DEBATE Towns and specifically inland wetlands commissions are hesitant to enforce regulations for fear of lawsuits from applicants. Commissions are ill-equipped with resources and technical experience to stand up to developers. Some propose combining inland wetland commissions with planning and zoning commissions to streamline the permit process. This would not efficiently or effectively solve the problem. Instead, funding for the DEP and municipalities would help supply commissions with better resources to protect inland wetlands and watercourses at the local level. NEXT STEPS 1) Identify funding sources to support municipal land use education/training programs [e.g. Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO), the Council on Soil and Water, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts]. 2) Strengthen the Department of Environmental Protection’s Inland Water Resources Program to assist municipal inland wetlands commissions. 3) Strengthen the capacity of local inland wetlands commissions by requiring inland wetlands commissions to be stand-alone and by eliminating term limits that contribute to the high rate of turnover on the commissions. | page 39 WATER Utility/Watershed Lands Utility companies own about 120,000 acres of land in Connecticut that are not subject to permanent conservation restrictions. Of this total, water companies own approximately 110,000 acres, including some of the most beautiful forest land in the state. This land also serves as protection for our water sources. Electric utilities own the remaining 10,000 acres of land, much of which should be saved for conservation purposes. Water company land is separated into three classes: Class I is closest to the drinking water source; Class II is the critical land surrounding the Class I land; and Class III is all other land owned by a water company. There are strong legislative protections on Class I & II land and incentives for private water companies to sell their Class III land for conservation purposes. Connecticut has had considerable success in preserving utility-company lands. Legislation was passed in 2000 to place conservation easements on Class II water-company lands when they are sold. In 2002, the state and The Nature Conservancy permanently protected about 18,000 acres of Bridgeport Hydraulic Company/ Kelda land through outright purchase and conservation easements. In 2004, legislation was passed that gave private water companies incentives through the rate-making process to sell land for conservation purposes rather than development. Moreover, in 2004, Sections 44 & 45 of Public Act 04-2 (the budget implementer bill) gave the Commissioner of Public Health the power to refuse to allow a reservoir to be abandoned should the agency determine that it would be needed to meet the state’s present or future water supply requirements. In 2006, legislation was passed requiring that towns notify the Commissioner of Public Health of any development application in a public drinking water watershed. This is to ensure the state can adequately monitor development that could impair drinking water. Approximately 250,000 acres of our drinking-water watersheds are in private hands (not owned by water companies, towns or the state) and, therefore, are highly vulnerable to development. Class I & II water company lands are well protected by law and strong statutory incentives exist for selling Class III land for conservation purposes. Unfortunately there are currently 110,000 acres of water company land that have no permanent protection, but that may be changed in future legislative sessions. FOR MORE INFORMATION Curt Johnson Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 Melissa Spear Trust for Public Land 203-777-7367 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 RELATED WEBSITES Housatonic Valley Association CROSS REFERENCES Clean Waterways Drinking Water Source Protection Long Island Sound - Stewardship Municipal Green Fund Open Space Water Management THE DEBATE Approximately 10,000 acres of electric-utility land remain vulnerable to sale and development. Many utility companies have been excellent stewards to these lands, but merger and acquisitions threaten this resource in the future. An effort to come to an agreement regarding the review of these lands has been made, but no land has been conserved. However, legislation passed in 2004 contained rate-making incentives for conserving water-company lands and may provide a model for protecting electric-company lands as well. NEXT STEPS Connecticut needs to develop a comprehensive plan for a fair and equitable system to protect the remaining forests that surround and purify our reservoirs for drinking water. This plan should include: 1) Restoring and re-investing in the state open space grant program to adequately fund ongoing watershed and clean drinking-water protection through the acquisition of important watershed lands. 2) New technical clarification to the 2005 energy bill, stating that water companies and conservation partners should continue to work together to negotiate conservation sales of water company lands. page 40 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 WATER Long Island Sound - Stewardship One tenth of the U.S. population lives within fifty miles of Long Island Sound, making it one of the most highly populated, intensively developed estuaries in the country. Long Island Sound is unique for having not one but two openings to the sea. Despite having degraded water quality and wildlife habitats, Long Island Sound remains home to a wide variety of species and contributes over $5 billion annually to the region’s economy. The 1972 Clean Water Act raised awareness of pollution but did not go far enough to ensure that Long Island Sound and other impaired water bodies would become healthy again. Since then, numerous remedial efforts have been initiated to continue the restoration of the Sound. A 1980 amendment to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act made Long Island Sound the only estuary in the country subject to the Ocean Dumping Act. In 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established the Long Island Sound Study, a bi-state research and planning initiative. Two years later, in 1987, Congress designated the Long Island Sound as an “Estuary of National Significance,” which led to the development of the following innovative programs: • The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) • Various water quality monitoring programs • Establishment of nitrogen total maximum daily load (TMDL) • The Nitrogen Trading Program • The Conservation Blueprint and Habitat Restoration Initiative • The Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative. FOR MORE INFORMATION Leah L. Schmalz Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 203-787-0646 Ext. 121 Sandy Breslin Audubon Connecticut 203-264-5098 Ext. 307 Mark Tedesco EPA Long Island Sound Office 203-977-1541 Lynn Werner Housatonic Valley Association 860-672-6678 CROSS REFERENCES Clean Waterways Global Warming Long Island Sound – Public versus Private Resource Municipal Green Fund Non-Point Source Pollution THE DEBATE An oyster crash (linked to shellfish disease), two separate lobster die-offs, and the continued persistence of hypoxic (low dissolved oxygen in the water) conditions signal the need for increased efforts to protect the Long Island Sound’s ecosystem. The introduction of invasive plants and animals, loss of native eel grass, and over-development of the shoreline threaten the biological integrity of the estuary. Usage issues, such as dredging, utility crossings, and recreational water rights, have raised the question of how to balance a myriad of competing interests. Point and non-point source pollution contribute stormwater, heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides and marine debris to the ecosystem which not only impacts the wildlife, but also greatly limits the public’s ability to use shoreline resources. Finally, global warming and its effects on sea level changes will likely impact sensitive tidal marshes and may lead to the eventual loss of these critical wildlife habitats. NEXT STEPS 1) Implement the Long Island Sound Stewardship Initiative with complementary state and federal funding. 2) Coordinate the efforts of organizations, corporations, agencies and private citizens to improve the waters and surrounding habitats of the Sound. 3) Re-invest in the Clean Water Fund to ensure that the 2014 Long Island Sound (hypoxia dead-zone) deadline and the 2020 combined sewer overflow deadline (stopping raw sewage discharges into our rivers) can be met. | page 41 4) Pass enabling legislation for stormwater authorities and establish a small yearly state fund to assist municipalities in developing stormwater pilot programs. 5) Fight development proposals the could impact traditional public uses. 6) Develop a sea level rise action plan. WATER Long Island Sound – Public versus Private Resource The waters of the Long Island Sound have been drawn into the debate over the country’s dependence on foreign fossil fuels. In 2006, a proposal to build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage and regasification industrial complex in the middle of the Long Island Sound was submitted by Shell and TransCanada. This project, called Broadwater Energy, is just over the jurisdictional line in New York waters, but will greatly affect Connecticut residents. The project is on a dual track process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has primary jurisdiction over the federal portion which includes input from agencies like the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Because the facility is physically located in New York waters, its state agencies will review the project for Water Quality, Air, and Coastal Zone permits. Currently, Connecticut is petitioning for jurisdiction under its Coastal Zone Management Program due in part to the impact to Connecticut waters and harbors of the projected tanker traffic and each of their accompanying exclusionary zones. By petitioning for jurisdiction, Connecticut can then participate in planning the use of Long Island Sound waters. Opposition has been overwhelming. It includes a regional grassroots effort that includes over 100 organizations, 60,000 petition signing individuals, well over 50 towns in New York and Connecticut, and the majority of the Long Island Sound region congressional members, as well as numerous state and local elected officials. The Connecticut Attorney General has been very active in opposing the project, and his office is representing itself and the Department of Environmental Protection in the permit process. FOR MORE INFORMATION Leah Schmalz Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound 1-888-SAVE-LIS RELATED WEBSITES Connecticut Attorney Generals Office Statement on Multi-State Task Force Against Broadwater U.S. Coast Guard Water Suitability Report on Broadwater Connecticut Fund for the Environment CROSS REFERENCES Energy Efficiency and Conservation Global Warming Long Island Sound – Stewardship Smart Growth THE DEBATE Opponents to the plant are concerned about the harmful environmental consequences to water quality and wildlife habitats, the setting of a precedent that favors privatized industrialization of public resources over public use and the lack of a national and/or regional LNG site planning process. They note that a facility of this magnitude has never been built; that original LNG projections for the U.S. were reduced due to increases in global demand and pricing; and that natural gas resources will be made available to the Northeast from existing pipelines that will connect to new Canadian LNG facilities. Supporters frequently site the country’s growing energy needs and the cost of energy here in the Northeast as the reason to site the proposed Broadwater Energy plant in Long Island Sound. Proponents also stress that natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel oil. This is true; however renewable energy sources and efficiency measures will take a back seat if this project is approved. The public needs to be aware that long-term energy solutions that do not jeopardize the health of Long Island Sound are available. NEXT STEPS 1) Increase public education and awareness about the implications of large scale projects such as Broadwater Energy. 2) Strengthen interstate relations 3) Investigate planning tools that enable the region to be proactive in potential use conflicts. page 42 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 BUDGET BASICS Understanding the State Budget WHAT IS THE CONNECTICUT STATE BUDGET? The Connecticut State Budget is a daunting document—more than 700 pages of charts, graphs, text, lots and lots of numbers, and some very small print. It is also, however, one of the state’s most fundamental policy documents for it defines what programs and services will receive financial support from the state, and describes how the responsibility of funding these programs and services is to be shared among Connecticut taxpayers. Under our state constitution, the members of the Connecticut General Assembly and the Governor have important responsibilities in this budget process—both in deciding how to raise revenue and where to spend it. Their decisions define the priorities of our state. WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THE STATE BUDGET? As citizens and as taxpayers, we have a responsibility to make sure our leaders’ priorities reflect our values and that their budget decisions meet our needs. Very often, significant budget changes are made with little media attention or public input. By understanding and monitoring the budget process, and making our voices heard, we can hold our leaders accountable. We can ensure that our state implements the programs we value and spreads the burden of financing them fairly. WHAT IS THE BUDGET PROCESS? Connecticut has a two-year budget. The budget is passed by the General Assembly and approved by the Governor in odd-numbered years and revised in even-numbered years. Because of the various stages of preparing the budget and because of frequent special sessions dealing with budget issues in deficit years, the budget process can go on year-round. GOVERNOR PREPARES BUDGET PREPARING THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET In the summer and fall, state agencies determine what they will need for the next fiscal year to continue or expand their work. They send recommendations to the Governor’s budget office, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), and in the late fall and early winter OPM estimates what revenues will be for the next year, modifies state agency requests, and sends a proposal to the Governor. Based on these recommendations, in February, the Governor submits his/her proposed budget to the state legislature. In even-numbered years, the Governor submits budget revisions to the state legislature. LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET Meanwhile, in the General Assembly, the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee considers those parts of the budget that pertain to collecting money (taxes, revenues), and borrowing money (bond requests), the Appropriations Committee considers proposals to spend money on the many programs and services supported with state dollars, and virtually all other Committees consider legislation that will affect state spending. In February and March, the committees hold public hearings on the various aspects of the budget. Public hearings are open to the public, and anyone may come to testify. During hearings that often last for hours, committee members receive input from a number of people including agency officials, state contractors, advocates, taxpayers, consumers, parents, and workers. The Appropriations Committee and the Finance, Revenue, and Bonding Committee prepare “spending” and “revenue” bills, respectively, that are voted on in committee in April or May. By state constitutional law, the state must balance its budget every year; therefore, projected expenditures (“spending”) cannot exceed projected revenue estimates. Because government officials often have different opinions on how to best balance the budget, legislative leaders often hold meetings with the Governor to reach a compromise on the final content of the bills. Similarly, legislative leaders often hold caucus meetings to try to resolve budget disagreements among legislators before the budget goes to a vote. | page 43 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW/ MODIFICATION OF THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET FINAL STEPS AND PASSAGE > > BUDGET BASICS Understanding the State Budget When a bill has been finalized a fiscal note is included. Provided by the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) within the General Assembly, fiscal notes accompany legislation and provide a brief statement of the fiscal impact legislation would have on state and local government. The OFA analyst with budgetary responsibility for the agency fiscally affected is responsible for preparing the note. Fiscal notes are prepared upon receiving a bill or amendment from the Legislative Commissioners Office (LCO) and do not need to be requested. It is purposefully very difficult for advocates to influence the process of developing a fiscal note as the note is intended to be objective. The OFA generally consults with the affected state agency, so ensuring that the agency has the most accurate information not only about costs but possible averted costs/savings can help. Bills that create a higher financial impact can be doomed by a fiscal note that states such. In even-numbered years, the process for legislative approval is similar except the legislative session is shorter, so the process is condensed. (In even-numbered years the session begins in February and ends in May, whereas in odd-numbered years, the session begins in January and ends in June.) DETAILS OF THE STATE BONDING PROCESS As stated above, Connecticut borrows money as bond requests. These requests are for capital projects and the authorization for a project that may be bonded begins in the General Assembly’s Joint Standing Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding. Bonding legislation states the amount of funding to be authorized and the purposes for the funding. Legislation may authorize bonding for one broad purpose, such as open space preservation, or it may name a project specifically. For a project to actually receive funding, however, it takes the action of the State Bond Commission. The Bond Commission is chaired by the Governor, and includes the Treasurer, Comptroller and Attorney General, the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, the Commissioner of Public Works, and the Co-Chairs and Ranking Members of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee. As the Governor chairs the Bond Commission, he/she controls whether the Commission meets and what is on the Commission’s agenda. While the Bond Commission is supposed to meet monthly, it does not necessarily do so. In 2006, the Bond Commission met only six times. Even if legislation has been passed authorizing bonding for a particular project, the project will only be funded if the Bond Commission meets, the project is on the agenda, and the Commission votes to approve funding. By controlling the meeting and the agenda of the Bond Commission, the Governor may exert a great deal of control over which projects in the state receive bonding. To place a project on the agenda of the Bond Commission, each state agency must submit the project to the Office of Policy and Management in advance according to a schedule published at the beginning of the year, and each submission must be accompanied by the appropriate background information. For conservation or development projects, each of these must be reviewed with respect to the State Plan of Conservation and Development. The total level of bonding for the entire state must also remain beneath a statutory cap. FINAL STEPS Usually near the end of the legislative session, the final budget bills are voted on by both houses of the General Assembly. If they are passed, they go to the Governor, who can then either veto or sign the budget. In some years, especially tough fiscal times like the ones Connecticut experienced in FY 02 and FY 03, there hasn’t been enough time to negotiate and complete a budget before the session ends, and legislators must return in Special Session to pass the budget. Once a budget is passed and approved by the Governor, the Office of Fiscal Analysis publishes the Connecticut State Budget. It can be found online at . WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM? The majority of the state’s revenues, or 74.6 % (as estimated in the FY 2007 adopted budget,) come from a variety of taxes (e.g. the personal income tax, sales and use tax, motor fuels tax, and various business taxes). page 44 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 -2008 BUDGET BASICS Understanding the State Budget About 14.9%1 of state revenues come from the federal government, 4.2% from gambling revenues, and 8% from other sources (such as permit and license fees and the tobacco litigation settlement). The state’s single largest source of revenue is the personal income tax. Second is the sales and use tax that both businesses and individuals pay when they buy many goods and some services. Like many Connecticut families, Connecticut pays for some of its expenses with its ‘credit card.’ Connecticut borrows money by issuing bonds, which investors buy. The State Treasurer sells bonds several times a year, based on the cash requirements for bond-fund projects. The state then pays off this indebtedness over time. By using bond debt, Connecticut is able to spread out the costs of major projects that will last for many years and that will provide long-term benefit to the state, rather than having to fund the projects with cash in a single fiscal year. However, as is true with loans that a family takes out to cover major purchases, the total cost of a project paid for with borrowed money is greater than one paid for in cash–since one must pay back not only the funds borrowed, but also interest. The percent of the budget devoted to debt service has increased since the late 1980s. In the late 1990s, when times were good, Connecticut had repeated surpluses and enacted over two billion dollars in tax and fee cuts. In the two fiscal years that followed, however, Connecticut made approximately a billion dollars worth of spending cuts, exhausted its one-time revenues, and made some tax and fee increases in order to deal with its deficit. Taxes remain, however, less than in the 1990s. WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR FY 2007 APPROPRIATED FUNDS BY FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE STATE BUDGET Legislative Conservation & Development Regulation & Protection Transportation Judicial General Government Corrections Health & Hospital Debt Service Non-Functional Education 0.5% 0.6% 2.5% 2.7% 2.8% 3.0% 8.7% 9.0% 11.2% 12.9% 19.7% 26.8% 0.0 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Human Services Source : OFA, Connecticut State Budget 2005-2006 Footnotes 1 In addition, state agencies in FY 07 will receive $1.27 billion in federal funds that are not appropriated by the General Assembly through its budget process. Though these funds are available to state agencies, they are not included in the 14.9 % reported above. | page 45 BUDGET BASICS Who Affects The State Budget? OFFICE OF POLICY & MANAGEMENT (OPM) GENERAL ASSEMBLY > > YOU! page 46 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 > STATE COMPTROLLER > STATE BUDGET > OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS (OFA) STATE TREASURER > How Can I Impact The Budget Process? The state spends its money on everything from running our courts and protecting children from abuse to operating our public colleges, providing healthcare to our poorest citizens and giving grants and loans to businesses to support economic development. As mentioned above, our state government will also borrow money for capital projects like school construction, highway maintenance and open space purchases. PREPARE AND EDUCATE Learn what is spent, how it is spent, and who oversees the spending. If you want to propose a new program, estimate how much it will cost. Look at other states, see if Connecticut funds anything similar, and get estimates from researchers and advocacy organizations. Be creative. SPEAK UP • Meet with, write, and call legislators, the Governor and any agency involved. Try to get your idea included in the agency’s budget options sent to the Governor in the fall. • Testify and/or submit written testimony at the public hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee that works on your part of the budget and hearings held by Committees that work on related legislation. FOLLOW PROCESS Although it sounds impossible, monitor the backroom budget negotiations. It isn’t as hard as you might think. If your issue is high profile, newspapers and other media may cover what is happening. If you have formed a relationship with a legislator, their staff, or someone at an agency, they may be able to let you know what is happening. CONTACT MEDIA • Write a Letter to the Editor or an Op-Ed for your paper about your proposal. • Hold a press conference. FOLLOW UP Always remember to thank anyone who helps you at any stage. | page 47 CONNECTICUT ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTORY Contact listing of environmental groups working on issues addressed in this briefing book. 1000 Friends of Connecticut American Farmland Trust American Lung Assoc. of CT American Society of Landscape Architects – CT Chapter Audubon Connecticut Public Policy Office Clean Water Action Connecticut Audubon Society Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions Connecticut Clean Energy Fund P.O. Box 1988 Hartford, CT 06144-1988 775 Bloomfield Avenue Windsor, CT 06095 45 Ash Street East Hartford, CT 06108 87 Willow Street New Haven, CT 06511 185 E. Flat Hill Road Southbury, CT 06488 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 118 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106 P.O. Box 2373 Vernon, CT 06066-1773 200 Corporate Place 3rd Floor Rocky Hill, CT 06067 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 30 Arbor Street Hartford, CT 06106 P.O. Box 2022 Hartford, CT 06145 900 Chapel Street New Haven, CT 06510 775 Bloomfield Avenue Windsor, CT 06095 77 Buckingham Street Hartford, CT 06106 40 Safe Wood Lane Windsor, CT 06095 16 Meriden Road Rockfall, CT 06491 205 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 P.O. Box 152 Rocky Hill, CT 06067 1390 Storrs Rd Unit 4163 Storrs, CT 06269 860-486-6448 860-523-0003 860-683-4239 860-289-5401 800-878-1474 203-264-5098 860-232-6232 860-527-6750 <1000friends-ct.org> 203-878-0910 860-563-0015 860-232-6232 860-233-2181 860-548-1133 203-498-3000 860-298-4406 860-247-0202 860-456-3179 860-346-2372 203-787-0646 Connecticut Climate Coalition Connecticut Citizen Action Group Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice CT Conference of Municipalities CT Farm Bureau Association Connecticut Farmland Trust Connecticut Federation of Lakes CT Forest and Park Association CT Fund for the Environment CT Green Building Council Connecticut Invasive Plant Working Group page 48 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 CONNECTICUT ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTORY CT League of Conservation Voters Connectictut Public Interest Research Group Environment Connecticut Program Connecticut Recyclers Coalition CT River Watershed Council Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation Connecticut Voices for Children Council on Soil and Water Conservation Ecological Health Organization, Inc. Environmental & Human Health, Inc. Environment Northeast Farmington River Watershed Association Friends of CT State Parks Grassroots Coalition of CT Hartford Citizens in Action Housatonic Valley Association Institute for Sustainable Energy International Dark Sky Association - CT Chapter Interreligious EcoJustice Network Land Trust Alliance League of Women Voters of CT 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 198 Park Road 2nd Floor West Hartford, CT 06119 P.O. Box 340601 Hartford, CT 06134 27 Washington Street Middletown, CT 06457 940 Whitney Avenue Hamden, CT 06517-4002 33 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06510 24 Ingham Hill Road Essex, CT 06426 P.O. Box 8232 Berlin, CT 06037 191 Ridge Road North Haven, CT 06473 101 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06510 749 Hopmeadow Street Simsbury, CT 06070 16 Meriden Road Rockfall, CT 06481 313 Saint Ronan Street New Haven, CT 06511 P.O. Box 715 Hartford, CT 06145 P.O. Box 28 150 Kent Road Cornwall Bridge, CT 06754 83 Windham Street Willimantic, CT 06226 1060 Mapleton Avenue Suffield, CT 06078 P.O. Box 270247 West Hartford, CT 06127 P.O. Box 1797 Litchfield, CT 06759 1890 Dixwell Avenue, #113 Hamden, CT 06514-3183 860-236-5442 860-233-7554 203-432-6852 860-704-0057 203-562-6312 203-498-4240 860-767-9594 570-472-0374 203-248-6582 203-495-8224 860-658-4442 860-437-1576 203-562-5229 860-539-3435 860-672-6678 860-465-0252 860-668-4000 860-231-8554 860-361-9310 203-288-7996 | page 49 CONNECTICUT ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTORY Northeast Organic Farming Association People’s Action for Clean Energy Rivers Alliance of Connecticut Save the Sound/CT Fund for the Environment Sierra Club/Connecticut Chapter Smart Power The Nature Conservancy Trout Unlimited Trust for Public Land Working Lands Alliance P.O. Box 164 Stevenson, CT 06491 101 Lawton Road Canton, CT 06019 7 West Street, 3rd Floor Litchfield, CT 06759 205 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 55 High Street Middletown, CT 06457 654 Cypress Road Newington, CT 06111 101 Whitney Avenue New Haven, CT 06510 775 Bloomfield Avenue Windsor, CT 06095 203-888-5146 860-693-4813 860-361-9349 203-787-0646 860-525-2500 860-249-7040 860-344-0716 860-667-2515 203-777-7367 860-683-4230 STATE OF CONNECTICUT Council on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture Department of Environmental Protection Department of Public Health 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 410 Capitol Avenue P.O. Box 340308 Hartford, CT 06134-0308 Ten Franklin Square New Britain, CT 06051 860-424-4000 860-713-2569 860-424-3000 860-509-7177 860-827-1553 Department of Public Utility Control WEB LINKS CT General Assembly CT Office of Policy and Management CT Health Policy Project, Health Advocacy Tool Box . page 50 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL BRIEFING BOOK EVALUATION FORM YES! [ ] $35 [ ] $50 [ ] Please charge my I’ll support the CTLCV Education Fund’s work to ensure that advocates, policy makers and the general public have the information they need to make good decisions when it comes to protecting Connecticut’s precious natural resources and the diverse life they support. Enclosed is my tax-deductible contribution in the amount of: [ ] $100 [ ] $500 [ ] $1,000 [ ] Other $______________ [ ] My check payable to CTLCV Ed Fund is enclosed. [ ] VISA [ ] MC [ ] AMEX Card #___________________________________ Exp. _______/________________________________ Name on Card _________________________________________________________________________ Signature _____________________________________________________________________________ PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Name ________________________________________________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________________________ City ____________________________________________________ State ___________ Zip __________ Phone _____________________ email ___________________________________________________ CTLCV Education Fund 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 Tel: 860-236-5442 Fax: 860-236-5448 [ ] Please send me information about including CTLCV Education Fund in my will. EVALUATION FORM Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund hopes that you have found the Environmental Briefing Book to be timely, informative and precise. We value your feedback, as we intend to update the Environmental Briefing Book on an annual basis. To better prepare us for next year’s volume, we encourage you to complete the evaluation form below and fax it to CTLCV Ed Fund at 860-236-5448 or e-mail your comments to ctedfund@earthlink.net. Thank you. What topic(s) did you find most helpful? ______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Are there any environmental issues that you would like to see addressed in future editions of the Briefing Book? _____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Other suggestions or improvements: __________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ | page 51 page 52 | Connecticut Environmental Briefing Book | 2007 - 2008 Designed by CPRdesignco llc CTLCV EDUCATION FUND PUBLICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL BRIEFING BOOK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF Betsy & Jesse Fink Fund of the Fairfield County Community Foundation Bydale Foundation Cottonwood Foundation Donal O’Brien Grenville Garside The Harris & Frances Block Foundation, Inc. Jane Marcher Foundation Newman’s Own Foundation BOARD OF DIRECTORS Russ Brenneman, Chair Tom Harrison, Secretary Alan Brewster Lois Hager Sharon Lewis William Ruskin STAFF Lori Brown Beth Byron Scott Tilden SPECIAL THANKS To Martha Phillips, Cecil Phillips-Ritchey and Essex Printing for their invaluable contributions to this publication. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER USING SOY BASED INK Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund 645 Farmington Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06105 860-236-5442