|
2008 Legislative Agenda
 Protecting Our Drinking Water Lands
Direct Intense Development Away from Our Drinking Water
Clarify Language in Our Wetland Laws
Clean Water and Stormwater Funding
Enabling Legislation for Stormwater Authorities
Transit for Connecticut
PROTECTING OUR DRINKING WATER LANDS
Background
Last year, a proposal for a large gravel mining operation on Class I water company lands, the forests that immediately surround drinking water reservoirs and the streams and rivers that flow into them, was passed at the very end of session, without any legislative hearing or review. During the September special session, Connecticut Fund for the Environment was proud to support the efforts of Representative Tim O'Brien, Senator Don DeFronzo and many others to repeal this dangerous legislative exemption. In reviewing our current statutory protections for Class I land, there are gaps and weaknesses to that system.
Next Steps
Amend and strengthen the statutes that protect Class I lands to clarify and re-emphasize that mining and all forms of residential and commercial development are prohibited. These precious acres of forests are critical buffers and purifiers of our public drinking water reservoirs, and are one of the key reasons Connecticut enjoys some of the purest drinking water in the country.
Return
DIRECT INTENSE DEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM OUR DRINKING WATER
Background
Since the 1980s, our state Department of Health and state Plan of Conservation and Development have advised and urged towns to adopt low-density zoning on drinking water watersheds to protect the water quality of our public drinking water supply. Water companies, on average, own only one-fifth of the forested land that surrounds and purifies the streams and rivers that drain into our reservoirs. About 50% of these forests are owned privately. These forests are facing increasing development pressure.
Next Steps
To protect our health and the purity of our drinking water, consistent with our State Plan of Development and Department of Health Guidance, intense development should not occur within our drinking water watersheds.
Return
CLARIFY LANGUAGE IN OUR INLAND WETLAND LAWS
Background
Recent court decisions have placed an increasing legal burden on local volunteer inland wetlands agencies in denying a permit to protect wetland and associated upland resources. Instead of requiring the applicant to prove that their project will be protective of the inland wetland resources, the local commission can only rely on expert testimony that establishes with certainty the negative impacts will occur to the inland wetland resource.
Next Steps
Clarify the wetlands act to make it clear that its purpose is to protect inland wetland resources. Clarify that the applicant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that their activity will not result in harm to the wetland resource. Clarify that local inland wetland agencies can rely on comments provided by the state Department of Health, expert environmental review team reviews, local water companies and the Department of Environmental Protection in reaching their decisions.
Return
CLEAN WATER AND STORMWATER FUNDING
Background
Clean water is essential. While progress has been made, the equivalent of two oil tanker loads of raw sewage a month continues to flow into our rivers and the Sound. We are only halfway toward restoring the low-oxygen dead zone in our Sound. Without an ongoing, long term funding of clean water projects, our goals of sewage-free waterways by 2020 and a restored Sound by 2014 will not be reached.
Last year we began making real clean water progress. A strong coalition, working with elected leaders, advocated successfully increasing clean water funding to $90 million a year—adequate to move forward projects designed to keep the restoration of the Sound on track. We will work to be sure that clean water funding is at least $90 million next year. Failure to do so could result in lakes and streams remaining impacted by sewage-laden water for 100 years beyond the 2020 deadline, and long delays in the clean-up of Long Island Sound.
Next Steps
Work with Connecticut Council of Municipalities, construction engineers and environmental allies to ensure that the approved $90 million in general obligation bonds for each of Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 is allocated to priority projects. While this session marked the greatest allowance of general obligation bonds in state history, it is inadequate to offset the damage done by the six year divestment. Since funding of combined sewage overflows are the most critical priority (and the area most affected by the lack of full funding), we will be advocating for a $20 million general obligation budget adjustment increase for Fiscal Year 2009.
Save the Sound will advocate for a $5 million-a-year Stormwater Innovation Fund, carved primarily from revenue bonds, to help towns invest in stormwater management solutions that will help restore hundreds of miles of currently polluted rivers and streams.
Return
ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR STORMWATER AUTHORITIES
Background
Development and the paving of Connecticut's shoreline have made stormwater runoff (and its associated bacteria) the top reason our beaches close with large rainstorms. This year a national study showed that Connecticut closed its beaches or issued advisories 224 times in 2006. This was a 12% increase from the previous year and a 100% increase since 2002. Runoff is also a culprit in the creation of the Long Island Sound "Dead Zone." As a prime source of nitrogen pollution, the runoff feeds massive algae blooms that rob oxygen from the waters and marine life of the Sound.
Next Steps
In the 2007 session, a pilot initiative enabling four municipalities to develop new plans and fee-based funding authorities to reduce and treat polluted stormwater runoff was created. These municipalities will be reporting back to the legislature in February. Because stormwater pollution closes many miles of beaches, rivers and streams to fishing and swimming each year, in the 2008 session we will seek to expand the enabling legislation to allow all towns in Connecticut to voluntarily establish stormwater authorities.
Return
TRANSIT FOR CONNECTICUT
Background
During the past five years, bus systems throughout Connecticut have reduced or barely maintained services in response to inadequate funding. In response to this critical situation, business, social service, environmental, planning and transportation organizations organized a coalition in 2006—Transit for Connecticut. Urbitran Associations, Inc prepared a bus needs analysis for Transit for Connecticut showing that a nominal increase in funding has the potential of increasing bus ridership by more than 80%, by extending urban service, providing new regional routes and connections to an expanding rail system, and providing better dial-a-ride services to help Seniors age at home.
At the start of the legislative session, the Governor's budget did not include sufficient funding to continue existing bus programs, and included a 25-cent fare increase, but the work of Transit for Connecticut and other advocates resulted in the state approving more that $10 million in operating funds for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 to increase bus services, and $20 million in bonding for Fiscal Year 2008 for capital projects to improve bus connectivity and services. This translates into limited route expansions, funding to put 50 new clean buses on the road, and the clean-up of bus pollution, to meet a goal of an all-clean bus fleet by 2011. While this is a great start, more needs to be done.
Next Steps
Continue to work with a broad coalition to ensure that the needed increases to clean bus transit happen this year—$12.7 million per year for operating expenses and $43.1 million per year related capital costs for the next five years, totaling $63.6 million and $215.4 million respectively. This nominal increase has the potential of increasing bus ridership by more than 80%.
Bus service can be increased quickly and it is flexible. Proposed funding will expand existing service, e.g., longer hours, increased frequency, more express bus routes and commuter connections, etc., and extend service to those areas of the state where no service exists.
Return |
