(Page last updated Mon Dec 3, 2007)
Connecticut Legislation
(See below for our 2007 Legislative Summary)
RIVERS ALLIANCE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AGENDA FOR 2008
No mining in drinking-water watersheds. Rivers Alliance will pursue legislative clarification of the statutes protecting Class I and Class II lands to ensure that protections for Class I are at least as strong as for Class II, and that commercial mining of rock, gravel, or other earth materials is prohibited. Rivers Alliance will also oppose any bill introduced to permit such mining.
River Front Protection Act. Rivers Alliance is a member of, and strongly supports, the coalition of environmental groups that is bringing forward legislation to provide vegetated and clean buffers along our rivers and streams. A river-front protection bill, based on a successful Massachusetts statute, will be introduced this year, and, with all of us working together, it has a strong chance of overcoming the inevitable strong opposition from developers.
No dumping of medications into state waters. In 2006, Rep. Terry Backer, the L. I. Sound Keeper, brought forward a concept bill to prohibit nursing facilities from throwing unused medications down the drain. These substances affect wildlife physiology, impair the functioning of sewage treatment facilities, and promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Rivers Alliance has been working with Rep. Backer, the Farmington River Watershed Association, and medical stakeholders on legislation to require a safer disposal method.
Wetlands Protection. Clarification of the wetlands statute to highlight the state commitment to protection of wetlands/water courses and that the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that project will not harm these resources.
Stream Flow Protection. In 2008, the DEP is expected to finish its proposed regulation for stream flow protection. Passage of this regulation will be a top priority.
Click here for the Rock Mining on Watershed Lands issue
2007 LEGISLATIVE SESSION: SUMMARY
The 2007 session of the Connecticut General Assembly offered dozens of bills relating to water. Some of the key issues were:
Rock Mining in Class I & II Lands. There are approximately 100,000 acres of preserved open space around reservoirs and drinking-water wells. For thirty years, these Class I and Class II lands have been conserved under state law in order to protect clean drinking water. At the end of the 2007 session, legislation was covertly introduced to allow New Britain water company to lease out its Class I and II lands for commercial rock mining. Following an outcry, this legislation was repealed, with Rep. Tim O’Brien and Sen. Don DeFronzo leading the way, and highly helpful support from the Hartford Courant. However, not only is the New Britain project expected to return, other water companies are considering the mining option. For example, the Metropolitan District Commission (the vast Hartford utility), is assessing its rock and gravel resources. Rivers Alliance will be working to block such mining projects and to strengthen the laws protecting drinking-water lands.
Clean Water Fund. Rivers Alliance (including its member watershed groups) was a cosponsor of a major coalition led by Connecticut Fund for the Environment, the Connecticut Council of Municipalities, and the Department of Environmental Protection, seeking restoration of grant funds for improved sewage treatment. We testified in support of House Bill 5010, calling for funding at $100 million. This would still be short of the approximately $150 million needed to catch up on sewage-plant projects scheduled to go forward. The bond package that passed post session included $90 million per year for the next two years -- not perfect but a giant step forward in reducing sewage contamination of our waters.
Funding for Water Basin Studies. Rivers Alliance and a broad coalition of watershed groups and water companies supported bonding of $500,000 for the Connecticut Institute of Water Resources to pursue basin-level studies, and an appropriation of $200,000 to get the work started in partnership with the Water Planning Council. Rep. Mary Mushinsky and Sen. Don DeFronzo legislative leaders of this effort. The funding is essential to the development of prudent policies and regulations relating to water allocation and stream flow. Both money bills passed in 2008, the most substantial investment in water-management planning in decades. Now we must attend to persuading the governor and the bond commission to release $500,000.
Hydroelectric Projects. In 2006, Rivers Alliance and the Farmington River Watershed Association, working with advocates for clean energy, succeeded in persuading legislators that new hydro projects receiving grants from the Clean Energy Fund should meet the standards of the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute LIHI). (These standards call for fish passage, adequate flows in bypass regions, and so forth.) We would like to see LIHI certification be a requirement for all hydropower plants that need any kind of state support, including selling their product at a premium price as a Class I renewable power source. In the 2007 energy bill, we saw mixed results, and we will be working on this issue again in 2008. We thank Sen. John Fonfara, Rep. Steve Fontana, and Rep. Vickie Nardello for their attention to this issue.
On-site, Alternate Sewage Treatment Plants. In various locales around the state, on-site sewage treatment plants have been installed or proposed. For about a year, Rivers Alliance has been collecting information on the performance of these technologies, which are typically used for at-risk sites not able to support traditional septic systems. Thanks to excellent work by engineer Herb Gram of Citizens for a Clean Hammonasset River, water-quality scientist Dick Harris of Harbor Watch/ River Watch, Sally Harold of The Nature Conservancy, Roger Reynolds of CT Fund for the Environment, and attorney Helen Garten of Westport, we now know that the alternate technologies installed thus far in Connecticut meet their permit requirements at best about half the time. Many perform much worse. Sen. Ed Meyer of Guilford took up the cause with a bill setting a one-year moratorium on the use of these technologies, with exemptions for remediation (which we support) and also for schools, towns, and nonprofits (which we felt went too far). Sen. Meyer’s bill failed, but another attempt to address the problem (Bill 6768, An Act Concerning the Approval of Subsurface Wastewater Systems) essentially transferred authority for the systems under 5,000 gallons per day from the Department of Environmental Protection to the Department of Public Health. This complicates matters. In 2008, Rivers Alliance will be working with colleagues named above to help shape regulations to guarantee that these systems perform as advertised.
Medications in Water. In recent years, scientists and the general public have become increasingly concerned about the volumes of medications flushed into water ways directly or entering as metabolites (excreted in urine). In Connecticut, the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition is doing a sophisticated study of meds in its waters, and the Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA) held a meds-return event at which people could bring in unused, unwanted medications for safe disposal. Rep. Terry Backer of Stratford, the Long Island Soundkeeper, introduced a very welcome bill, number 5292, prohibiting medical institutions from disposing of medications in state waters. This was enthusiastically supported by Rivers Alliance and other groups, but it failed to gain traction. The chief barrier to success is that the federal government requires that unused medications be disposed of in a way that puts them beyond recovery by bad people, and flushing is the method of choice. Rivers Alliance, with two medical doctors on its board (Dr. David Bingham and Dr. Marc Taylor) looks forward in 2008 to working with Rep. Backer, FRWA, and representatives of medical institutions to find a satisfactory means of disposal.
Riparian Corridors. For at least ten years, advocates for water resources have sought but failed to achieve consistent statewide setbacks to protect rivers, streams, and wetlands. In 2007, Trout Unlimited and Connecticut Fund for the Environment (CFE) made a splash by backing a bill (7343) that would have established a 200-foot regulated area adjacent to all high-quality streams (classified A or AA) and wetlands. Considerably modified (wetlands were dropped and the setback was reduced to 100 feet), the bill passed by the Environment Committee, with Representatives Roberta Willis and Mary Mushinsky leading the way. Supporting testimony was delivered by Rivers Alliance, Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Audubon Connecticut, and the South Central Regional Water Authority. In 2008, these groups will be back with a similar legislation to enhance riverfront and wetlands protections.
Pesticides. As part of its long campaign to reduce excessive pesticide use, Rivers Alliance supports Environment and Human Health Institute and the Watershed Partnership in working toward this goal. In 2007, we testified in favor of bill 5234, which extends the ban on cosmetic pesticides on the grounds of elementary schools to middle and high schools as well. The ban passed, and many communities are also becoming involved in voluntary limits on pesticides. Meanwhile we must vigilantly watch for industry-backed bills that would rollback protections.
Municipal Green Fund. This would give municipalities the ability to charge buyers of real estate a small fee that could be used for community projects consistent with protection of environmental resources. The Green Fund was part of the Act Concerning Global Warming, bill 1432, but did not make it through. In 2008 Rivers Alliance will remain committed to finding some means to fund environmentally oriented town-based projects.
We thank the Co-chairs of the Environment Committee. Sen. Bill Finch and Rep. Richard Roy. They did good work and stayed cool.
Written Tue Feb 20, 2007: 2007 LEGISLATIVE SESSION:
Water, Water Everywhere
The 2007 session of the Connecticut General Assembly is offering dozens of bills relating to water. Rivers Alliance is taking the lead on some, playing a supporting role on others, and opposing a few. We have been helped by numerous groups and individuals from around the state. Some of the key issues are:
Clean Water Fund. Rivers Alliance (including its member watershed groups) is a cosponsor of a major coalition led by Connecticut Fund for the Environment, the Connecticut Council of Municipalities, and the Department of Environmental Protection, seeking restoration of grant funds for improved sewage treatment. A half dozen bills have been introduced in the legislature. We support the basic bill calling for an appropriation of $100 million in the coming year. This will still be short of the approximately $150 million needed to catch up on sewage-plant projects scheduled to go forward. The grants program was essentially de-funded three years ago during the budget crisis. Meanwhile, the state is falling behind in its goals for nitrogen reduction to clean up rivers and Long Island Sound.
Funding for Water Basin Studies. Rivers Alliance and a broad coalition of watershed groups and water companies support an appropriation of $500,000 for the Connecticut Institute of Water Resources to pursue basin-level studies essential to the development of prudent policies and regulations relating to water allocation and stream flow. This funding was in the 2006 bond package, which never went to a vote, although the mandate to do the studies did pass (Special Act 06-09). The funding bill this year is number 5601, offered by Rep. Mary Mushinsky, who was also the leader of last year’s efforts.
Hydroelectric Projects. Last year, Rivers Alliance and the Farmington River Watershed Association, working with advocates for clean energy, succeeded in persuading legislators that new hydro projects receiving grants from the Clean Energy Fund should meet the standards of the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute LIHI). (These standards call for fish passage, adequate flows in bypass regions, and so forth.) This language was in the 2006 energy bill, which never came to a vote, and remains in the legislation presently on the table. In 2007, we have advocated that the same LIHI standard be used for hydro projects on dams leased from the state. (Bill 5214 enables the state to lease dams for private hydro projects, most likely to apply to the dams in Collinsville.) We would like to see LIHI certification be a requirement for all hydropower plants that want to sell their product at a premium price as a Class I renewable power source.
On-site, Alternate Sewage Treatment Plants. In various sites around the state, on-site sewage treatment plants have been installed or proposed. For about a year, Rivers Alliance has been attempting to develop information on the performance of these technologies, which are typically used for sensitive or at-risk sites not able to support traditional septic systems. Thanks to excellent work by engineer Herb Gram of Citizens for a Clean Hammonasset River and water-quality scientist Dick Harris of Harbor Watch/ River Watch at Westport’s Earthplace, we now know that the alternate technologies installed thus far in Connecticut meet their permit requirements at best about half the time. Many perform much worse. Three bills have been introduced addressing these packaged, often private, sewage treatment installations. One, brought forward by Sen. Ed Meyer of Guilford, comes close to the position developed by Rivers Alliance, Connecticut Fund for the Environment, as well as the advocates just mentioned and others. Our position is that there should be a one-year moratorium on the use of these technologies, with at least a partial exception for remedial work on problematic sites. This moratorium should be renewed annually until such time as the DEP can certify that the treatment methods can perform as advertised and as required by permitting standards.
Medications in Water. In recent years, scientists and the general public have become increasingly concerned about the volumes of medications flushed into water ways directly or entering as metabolites (excreted in urine). In Connecticut, the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition is doing a sophisticated study of meds in its waters, and the Farmington River Watershed Association held a meds-return event at which people could bring in unused, unwanted medications for safe disposal. In the legislature, Rep. Terry Backer of Stratford, the Long Island Soundkeeper, introduced a very welcome bill, number 5292, prohibiting medical institutions from disposing of medications in state waters. This was enthusiastically supported by Rivers Alliance. The chief barrier to success is that federal government requires that unused medications be disposed of in a way that puts them beyond recovery by bad people, and flushing is the method of choice. Rivers Alliance, with two medical doctors on its board (Dr. David Bingham and Dr. Marc Taylor) looks forward to working with representatives of medical institutions to find a satisfactory means of disposal.
Pesticides. As part of its long campaign to reduce excessive pesticide use, Rivers Alliance works with Environment and Human Health Institute and the Watershed Partnership toward this goal. This year we have testified in favor of bill 5234, which extends the ban on cosmetic pesticides on the grounds of elementary schools to middle and high schools as well.
Excerpts from Rivers Alliance Testimony
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut is pleased to testify in support of this important bill.
The following organizations and individuals asked us to convey their support for this bill: The Connecticut Association of Inland Wetlands and Water Course Commissions(CACIWC), the Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District, Harbor Watch/River Watch based in Westport, Housatonic Valley Association, the Mattabesek Audubon Society, the Norwalk River Watershed Association, the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition, the Quinnipiac River Watershed Association, James Belden of Newtown, Hugh Rawson of Roxbury, and Jason Rupaka of Plainville.
This legislation is backed by a wide and deep coalition of residents of this state. It is vital to public health, open beaches, aquatic life in Long Island Sound, and boating and swimming for pleasure in Connecticut’s rivers.
After decades of excellent progress in treating sewage before it reaches our rivers and estuaries, improvement has slowed. Rivers Alliance of Connecticut is called upon to comment on both federal and state sewage-treatment policies, and we have observed in the last few years a tendency to justify or at least overlook less than optimal treatment.
In Connecticut, this tendency has run concurrently with cutbacks in support for the grants program in the Clean Water Fund. Rivers Alliance protested in 2002 and 2003, when support was virtually eliminated. We were told that the program was up to date, there were no immediate pressing needs, and the state did have pressing needs elsewhere. No good deed goes unpunished. The program has never recovered, and now has a backlog of much-needed treatment-plant upgrades.
Full sewage treatment is not just a benefit to the communities that use a particular plant. It is an essential health service to all residents of the state, essential to the ecological integrity of our rivers and the Sound, and essential to all the people that enjoy and make their living from and in our waters. That is one reason that it is fair that some of the costs of sewage treatment be borne by the state generally in the form of bonds.
Last year, the General Assembly recognized the need to increase funding, and put $70 million into the bond package, that unfortunately never came to a vote. The $100 million proposed in this bill with leave the upgrade program almost $50 million short of full funding for projects in line. I urge you to review with the Connecticut Council of Municipalities and the Department of Environmental Protection the implications of this shortfall. Connecticut Fund for the Environment and the American Council of Engineering Companies also have financials on how much is needed when.
The state of Connecticut has entered an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and New York State to reduce nitrogen and restore life in Long Island Sound. We have a nitrogen-credit trading program that is innovative and working well. But without correct funding, the program cannot meet its goals.
Today a high school student from Westport called our office to ask about nitrogen contamination, and what it does. We told her that it causes dead zones like the one near her in the Sound. “What’s a dead zone? she asked. It’s a place without life. It’s where excess nitrogen has cause large algae blooms, and as the algae die (rot, burn) they consume oxygen. Every creature that can swim, leaves. Every creature that is stuck in place dies.
We can change that. We can have healthy water and healthy beaches. But to do it, we have to invest in cleaning up after ourselves. It’s basic hygiene.
Thanks for your work on this major health and environmental issue.
Testimony in support of Bill 5601
AAC A Study of Basin-Level Water Planning
This bill is aimed at providing the science and management information necessary to implement water planning for the state of Connecticut. The need for high level planning was recognized by the General Assembly in the creation of the Water Planning Council in 2001; in the 2003 report on stream flow and water allocation from the Program Review and Investigations Committee; in legislation from 2002 and 2004 sponsored by Rep. Mary Mushinsky requiring water diverters to file diversion reports with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); in the precedent- setting stream flow protection act of 2005; and finally in the $500,000 bonding proposed last year in the bond package and in special act 06-09, again thanks to leadership by Rep Mushinsky, as well as Sen. Don DeFronzo.
The DEP under the leadership of Commissioner Gina McCarthy has devoted extraordinary resources to supporting and implementing the stream flow protection act (P.A. 05-142). This act directs the DEP to write a new stream flow regulation that will protect flows in all the state’s waterways while taking into consideration societal needs for water supply. As the Program Review committee discovered, one cannot address flow protection without solving the problem of water allocation. Therefore, the DEP and a broad range of stakeholders are struggling, on limited to non-existent funding, to develop a scientific, fair, and prudent approach to allocation of water.
This effort has been under-funded and under-recognized primarily because of a complacent belief that Connecticut has plenty of water to go around without any need for planned sharing. But increasingly town officials, legislators, and state agency people are realizing that mismanagement of water is leading to shortages and conflict. You have a bill before this committee to help the town of Sprague remedy a challenging water shortage. Litchfield, where we have an office, is similarly short of water, and hoping to import more from Torrington. The town of Woodbury, severely hurt by MTBE pollution, has just discovered additional contaminants in its aquifer; Montville is facing a $10 million fine and other costs because of inability to provide sufficiently high quality water to Rand Whitney; the University of Connecticut ran the Fenton River dry while trying to supply water to students during a dry spell. East Lyme is short of water. Groton has just become water supplier to the neighborhood upstream (including the casinos) and is simultaneously putting its supply at risk by proposed intense development alongside its reservoirs. And so forth.
There are 60 basins reliably identified as impaired or at risk because of low flows, primarily because of water withdrawals. As demand grows and supply of potable water shrinks (often because of pollution), this situation is going to get worse. Fishers, boaters, bird watchers, hikers and conservationists generally are fighting to protect high-quality streams and headwaters. Washington and Roxbury sued Waterbury over reduced flows in the Shepaug River. New Haven and Hamden sued the South Central Regional Water Authority to get a stream management plan for the Mill River.
This state has almost 50 inches of rain a year. Its water resources are an extraordinary economic asset. We are the only state with so much clean water that we can prohibit using water that has received a waste discharge for drinking water. We attract large foreign water investors. Our supplies are in the sights of our water-thirsty neighbors (Massachusetts, Long Island) and foreign nations where water is desperately needed. Compared to the Southwest, where you can only flush about once a day, rainy New England is beginning to look good again.
But despite the clear need to conserve and manage our water resources in a world that is becoming ever more water poor, we have devoted almost no money to this task. The DEP, the other state agencies with responsibilities for water, and the many stakeholders who work with them on water issues are struggling to scrape together enough data on hydrology and management to make good decisions for our future. The $500,000 proposed in Bill 5601 for basin studies is essential to protecting the resource. As Sen. Finch commented in the public hearing last Friday, while discussing flood control projects, we need basin data and the $500,000 is a modest sum for this purpose.
Bill 5601 is presented this year to implement last year’s legislation, which was stalled by non-action on the bond package. We strongly support it with language proposed by The Nature Conservancy or the somewhat different language proposed by the Connecticut Water Works Association, both designed to specify that the funding should mostly like come from appropriations rather than bonding.
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut is pleased to testify in support of this important bill. We thank Rep. Terry Backer for his work on this issue.
The following organizations and individuals asked us to convey their support for this bill: The Connecticut Association of Inland Wetlands and Water Course Commissions(CACIWC), the Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District, the Connecticut River Watershed Council, Harbor Watch/River Watch based in Westport, Housatonic Valley Association, the Mattabesek Audubon Society, the Norwalk River Watershed Association, the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition, the Quinnipiac River Watershed Association, James Belden of Newtown, Hugh Rawson of Roxbury, and Jason Rupaka of Plainville.
Contamination of water by medicines (and metabolites of medicines) has been widely recognized in recent years as a threat to the environment. The practice in medical institutions (following guidance from the US Drug Enforcement Administration) is instruct people to flush away unused medicines. This supposedly destroys the substances, which is a reflection of the natural but unrealistic thought that once substances go down the toilet, they are totally and forever gone. But in fact, they remain in our rivers, ground water, streams, and estuaries.
Connecticut waste water treatment plants have no means to remove or mitigate the mass of medicines that flow into our state waters. These mix with other contaminants, such as pesticides and certain ingredients in cleaning products (e.g., nonylphenol), in combinations that pose a real challenge to public health scientists. I enclose an article with related references from the US Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, which gives a sense of the scope of the contamination. The USGS findings supplement numerous similar studies in both Europe and the US.
The best-documented, and highly disturbing finding is that fish and other aquatic creatures are affected by endocrine disruptors, developing hermaphroditic sex organs and losing the ability to reproduce. When animals are this severely affected by a toxin, humans should take warning.
Perhaps the clearest threat to human health is the common presence of antibiotic, antibacterial substances that can help breed antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. Beyond that, the sheer waste of expensive and much-needed pharmaceuticals is extraordinary. We are feeding to fish medicines that people need and that fish definitely don’t need.
Connecticut residents are paying increasing attention to this problem. In 2005, people were disgusted when dozens of blister packs of medications and other medical accessories jammed the works at the Georgetown treatment plant. Last year, the Farmington River Watershed Association ran a drug-return program. The Register Citizen newspaper reported on drugs worth thousands of dollars being thrown down the drain in Torrington. The Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition is conducting an expensive and sophistical study of medications in that community’s waterways.
Three years ago, this state took an important step toward commonsense disposal of drugs by allowing the 50 most frequently used medicines at nursing homes to be repackaged and reused. It is time now to take another commonsense step, and require medical institutions to stop contaminating state waters with pharmaceuticals. A simple method would be to put the medicines with water in sealed containers and deliver them to a waste collection site. More complex but very doable is to send them back to the manufacturer for disposal (presumably by incineration) or re-use. We send printer cartridges back to the manufacturers. Some stores even give coupons for bringing them in. Surely we can find a way to dispose of unwanted meds without disrupting and contaminating the state’s aquatic ecosystems.
The federal government is taking a long, slow approach to dealing with this problem. It is hard to say whether the effort is aimed at accomplishing protection or stalling for decades. We’d be happy to provide more detail if desired. But once again, for action, people look to their state government. Connecticut is a leader in promoting medical research and innovation, and can equally be a leader in promoting safe handling of these products.
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut thanks the committee and the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Terry Backer, for addressing the troubling issue of private sewage treatment facilities. The combination of private sewage operations with new, nontraditional treatment technologies has led to some below-par and out-of-compliance operations around the state. With new projects being proposed regularly, we have become concerned about the impact on water quality.
The issue is complex because there are a variety of new treatment technologies that can be used by public or private entities. Several schools (public and private) use packaged on-site treatment technologies. Some municipalities are considering similar methods. Private developers turn to these technologies to enable projects on sites that otherwise lack adequate space for traditional septic treatment.
In 2002, the General Assembly prohibited the installation of on-site sewage treatment plants in drinking-water watersheds (Public Act 02-129). This year, we are aware of three bills that look to your committee to develop more law on alternate sewage treatment technologies and private sewage operations. One is the bill you are taking up today. Another is Bill 6768, AAC Concerning Approval of Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Systems, introduced by Rep. O’Connor, Sen. Daily, and Rep. Giuliano. The third is Bill 1026, An Act Placing a Moratorium On Alternative On-site Sewage Treatment Systems, introduced by Sen. Meyer. All three bills require the involvement of the Department of Environmental Protection.
Let me briefly observe that unless the DEP as an agency receives more funding from the state, we should expect continued difficulties in keeping up with mandated programs much less taking on new tasks successfully. We interact with the DEP all the time, and press hard on our issues. We have found DEP responsive in most cases. But we have to recognize that key programs that affect water quality are way understaffed, and there is no effective cure in sight except more funding. Understaffed programs include those relating to sewage treatment, industrial wastewater discharges, inland wetlands protection, state parks, pesticides in state waters, and many more.
Rep. Backer’s bill underlines the difficulty of guaranteeing performance with numerous private sewage facilities. We fully agree that the DEP should have broad monitoring and enforcement authority, as his bill requires. Bill number 6768 focuses on the subsurface discharges that are typical of alternate sewage technologies. There are a number of outstanding questions on this issue, such whether it is appropriate to allow more nitrogen in subsurface discharges than in surface-water discharges. The bill that comes closest to the position that we have developed is Bill 1026, which places a moratorium on alternative on-site sewage treatment systems.
We support a moratorium on new installations until their performance comes closer to meeting discharge permits or other performance criteria. According to DEP records (primarily), a leading on-site treatment product is in compliance in only about half of its reported tests; another is out of compliance in 67 percent of tests; a third product is operating without a permit in a couple of cases, and is reportedly also experiencing performance problems. We would exempt from the moratorium remediation projects on already impaired sites, on the condition that at some point the system meet state standards.
We would be happy to answer any questions relating to Bill 5289, and stand ready to assist the committee in any way that we can in arriving at a prudent and protective process for permitting and monitoring new and/or private sewage-treatment technologies.
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut supports this bill with a couple of qualifications. Our general stance with regard to hydro projects is that, if they are environmentally beneficial, we support them. Moreover, we encourage state support for such projects, including leasing a state-owned dam for generation of hydroelectricity.
The measure we feel is most practical for the environmentally “beneficial” aspects of a project is certification by the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI). This is the standard used by Pennsylvania for hydropower plants in its renewables portfolio standards for Class I designation. It is the standard that the Connecticut General Assembly’s Energy and Technology Committee used in the 2006 energy bill for hydro projects eligible for grants from the Clean Energy Fund. Therefore we would propose adding the following language to the end of the bill: “… to allow the private entity to generate electricity if the plant and operation that meet the standards of the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute.
LIHI was established by American Rivers and Green Mountain Energy to develop economic incentives for high-quality, environment-friendly hydropower. Certification is similar to LEED certification for “green” buildings. We would be glad to provide more information if desired. We believe that this bill could be used to support hydropower in the town of Collinsville on the Farmington River, and that such a project could meet LIHI standards.
We would oppose any change in the language that would make the leasing of state dams mandatory, and we believe this is also the position of the Department of Environmental Protection.
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut strongly supports this bill. We give talks around the state to civic groups (including especially garden clubs), and the subject most often requested is how to landscape and garden without impairing water on or off one’s property. While ten years ago, there was significant resistance to an organic approach, in recent years most audiences are already highly concerned about pesticide use and aware of the serious health risks
Rivers Alliance has a special mission to protect water quality, and the nearly one billion pounds of pesticides used in the US each year poses a serious threat aquatic ecology as well as human health. The March 2006 US Geological Survey (USGS) report on pesticides in US waters found them present in most waters tested (!). Press reviews and other descriptions of the report stressed that that although these toxins were frequently present at levels that could harm aquatic life, they “seldom occurred at concentrations greater than water-quality benchmarks for human health” (quote from the report). Dr. Jerry Silbert of the Watershed Partnership pointed out to us (and we subsequently verified) that this comforting conclusion was not fully supported by the USGS data. Most pesticide use is seasonal, but the measure for water-quality benchmarks was based on averaging out the concentrations over a year. The actual seasonal levels were much higher (from 17 times higher than the average to 175 percent higher at the peak).
Most scientists researching pesticides in our environment are alarmed by the sheer number of pesticide products, many with multiple chemicals. Potential health effects are legion. In this situation, you are to be commended for protecting our most vulnerable population, children. We urge you to extend this protection as stipulated in Bill 5234.
River Rescue
Good Hydropower
Like the dog that didn’t bark in the night, an important clue to the character of the 2006 legislative session was the silence on two major issues. The legislature failed to vote on an energy bill or a bond package. Coalitions of environmental groups, municipalities and others are urging state leaders to call a special session to deal with both issues, but thus far to no effect.
River Rescue: The abandoned bond package included $3.5 million to implement the Shepaug River settlement. In this case, Gov, M. Jodi Rell came to the rescue, authorizing release of the funding in the June 9 meeting of the Bond Commission. This money will be used to make the infrastructure changes needed in the Waterbury water-supply system to release additional water into the Shepaug River. The releases, which will reflect the natural variability of flow, were negotiated after ten years of bitter and costly litigation between the City of Waterbury and the towns and land trusts of Washington and Roxbury. The case has been closely watched not only in Connecticut but across New England. Its successful outcome bodes well for other rivers in the Northeast. The settlement is likely to serve as a model for the statewide stream flow regulation being written at the CT Department of Environmental Protection. Rivers Alliance staff and directors are closely involved as stakeholders and advisors in the writing process.
Environmentally Good Hydropower: Rivers Alliance members and allies have supported hydropower reform at the state and federal levels. The CT 2006 energy bill included language requiring that new hydropower projects funded by ratepayers meet the excellent environmental standards of the Low-Impact Hydropower Institute, and we will be fighting to keep and even strengthen that language as the bill goes forward this year or next. Meanwhile, in the U.S. Supreme Court, friends of rivers had a win when the judges ruled that hydropower dam discharges can be regulated under the Clean Water Act (see the Ripple on S.D. Warren). Unfortunately, the federal energy bill of 2005 weakened environmental protections for hydropower, and we do not yet know the outcome of our efforts to ensure that regulations tied to the bill are at least fair to all parties.
Sewage Treatment: Environmentalists and the CT Conference of Municipalities teamed up to advocate vigorously for adequate support for the Clean Water Fund. The $20 million slated in last year's budget for sewage treatment grants in 2006 was less than a quarter of what is needed to more planned projects forward. This means more beach closings, more damage to Long Island Sound, and more health risks. An additional $50 million was in the bond package, and it is urgent this money somehow be made available to upgrade the state’s problematic waste-water management system.
Basic Research: The bond bill also contains an allocation of $500,000 to the Connecticut Institute of Water Resources to manage long-needed water basin studies, including the completion of partially done studies (most likely those in the basins of the Pomperaug, Eight-Mile and Quinnipiac rivers. This funding is to break the cycle on nonaction due in part to inadequate scientific data and other types of information.
State Lands Still at Risk: Many of our members and a coalition of statewide environmental groups fought for SB 188, An Act Concerning the Transfer of State Lands. This bill provided for reform of the way the state disposes of publicly owned land. It's major pieces were 1) a requirement that the public be notified before public land is transferred, and have a chance to comment! 2) that the DEP do an environmental review and make conservation recommendations when appropriate. The bill (written primarily by Roger Reynolds of CT Fund for the Environment) passed in the Senate on the last night of the session. But in the House, minority leader Bob Ward declined to waive rules to let the bill come to a vote (although he did so for many other pieces of legislation). Among the legislators who helped in this effort were Rep. James Spallone, Sen. Don DeFronzo, Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, Rep. James O'Rourke, and Rep. Diana Urban. We’ll all be back next year.
Incidentally, the property that prompted our investigation of the transfers of state land was the Norwich Hospital Property on the Thames River, including 250 acres of unspoiled woods and streams. The state has given an option to the town of Preston to acquire the property for $1. Preston is considering transferring it to the development corporation Utopia Studios for $10. In May, Preston residents voted by a margin of 53 percent (representing a 300 vote margin of victory) to support the $1.6 billion Utopia proposal for an intense entertainment and arts complex on the center. A key factor in the vote was Utopia's estimate that the entertainment complex would create 22,000 jobs, with union benefits. (DisneyWorld in Orange County, Cal., has 21,000 employees.)Pesticides: Environmental advocates succeeded in blocking an effort to erase last year’s protective legislation that prohibits use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes at elementary schools and day-care centers. Instead of this level of protection, industry advocates wanted to substitute Integrated Pest Management. Next year we hope to extend the restriction on harmful toxins. Meanwhile, Rivers Alliance is working with representatives of the Town of Roxbury and others to review the program at the CT Department of Environmental Protection that applies to the use of pesticides in ponds and other state waters. This program appears to us to need tightening up in the light of recent findings regarding the toxic effects of pesticides and herbicides and their prevalence in our nation’s waters.
AT LAST!
NEW LAW PROTECTS RIVER FLOWS
Connecticut has a new law, Public Act 05-142, to protect rivers and streams. The law directs the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to develop science-based standards for flows in all the state's waterways. This compares with the present situation in which we have a 25-year-old standard, not based on science, and applicable only to streams that the DEP stocks with fish. The standard is so low (providing for less than one-third the quantities recommended by the US Fish & Wildlife Service) as to be nearly useless.
The creation of a new stream-flow regulation has been at the top of the Rivers Alliance agenda since 2000. But each year we hit a wall built with a variety of bricks: the reluctance of water utilities to cede any authority over the allocation of water under their control; the reluctance of legislators to do anything that would displease the City of Waterbury, which was involved in litigation over flow to the Shepaug River; the reluctance of the DEP to take on additional unfunded and controversial work; and the sense among river and fishing people that improvement of flow rules was a lost cause.
This year the wall gave way. The City of Waterbury reached an agreement with the Shepaug River advocates and ceased to oppose reform of stream-flow regulation. Rivers Alliance was joined by three strong environmental organizations, and thus we had a great team. (Trout Unlimited had hired an attorney, Kirt Mayland, to work on stream flow issues; the Nature Conservancy took up the cause with its expert advocate, David Sutherland; and the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, with their skilled executive director, Lori Brown, put stream-flow legislation on their priority list of bills.) Finally, and very importantly, the DEP was headed by a new commissioner, Gina McCarthy who took up the cause and said, let's get this done.
At that point (about half way through the legislative session), the DEP gathered all stakeholders, including the Department of Public Health, and negotiated acceptable language for the final version of the legislation.
The original flow-regulation bill was introduced by Sen. Andrew Roraback, and then became a committee bill under the leadership of the chairs of the Environment Committee, Sen. Andrea Stillman and Rep. Richard Roy. Timely assists came from Rep. Chris Murphy, chair of the Public Health Committee; Rep. Lew Wallace who fended off opposition from members of the Planning and Development Committee, which he chairs; Rep. Mary Mushinsky, who presented the bill to the House; and Rep. Art O'Neill who gave important support.
Above all, the public (that is you, dear readers) raised a polite but persistent clamor that pushed the bill over the finish line. The final vote was nearly unanimous in both houses. (One nay was cast in the Senate.)
Looking Ahead
Hard work lies ahead to write a regulation that will protect river ecology, provide for necessary water supply, and make it past the General Assembly's Regulations Review Committee.
The final product is likely to be a series of basin-based flow-management plans similar to the plan worked out for the Shepaug River. While there is good data for some rivers, others may need considerable study before a sound plan can be developed. Thus, implementation of the regulation will require money for research and planning.
The regulation will be written by the DEP in consultation with stakeholders. Presently, a group of stakeholders is working under the aegis of the Water Planning Council on a related problem: the development of a rational state water-allocation policy (including allocations for the environment). This Water Allocation Work Group includes representatives of water utilities, river and fishing groups, industry, the Farm Bureau, state agencies, the US Geological Survey, and others. This inclusive group is likely to be very similar to the stakeholders who will work with the DEP on the regulation.
We're aiming for something less than the 14 years it took to get aquifer-protection regulations. (posted 7/20/05)
This was a pretty good year for environmental legislation, thanks in part to an unusually collaborative effor by almost all environmental groups. The list below comes from the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (with some updates). Rivers Alliance was active in connection with most of the bills cited here.
MAJOR 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION THAT PASSED
: 410 Land Preservation (Farms & Open Space), Affordable Housing, Historic Preservation Will raise $27 million for open space, farmland, historic preservation and affordable housing by adding a $30 surcharge on real estate recordings. Signed/ vetoed by Gov. Jodi Rell after a suspenseful wait.
916 Restrictions of Lawn Care Pesticides To protect children from exposure to lawn care pesticides by banning cosmtic applications on grounds of day-care centers and grammar schools. There is a three-year phase-in period for the recreational fields.
920 A CT Clean Diesel Program Mandates developing a plan to reduce diesel pollution from state bus fleets and construction equipment and from home heating oil.
1294 Minimum Stream Flow Regulations Requires DEP to update standards for water flow in streams and rivers.
6570 Plans of Conservation and Development (Smart Growth) Identifies priority funding areas. Promotes consistency among local, regional and state plans of conservation and development. Calls for compact transit-oriented mixed-use development. Office of Policy and Management (OPM) is to develop management plans for key corridors. Bad late amendment provides large municipal exemptions.
637 Bi-State Long Island Sound Committee Establishes a bi-state committee to encourage a NY-CT effort for long range planning for the protection and restoration of Long Island Sound.
6906 Energy Independence To promote the use of distributed energy (passed in Special Session)
6908 CT Clean Car Incentive Program Requires the DEP to make recommendations for financial incentives for the purchase of clean low-emission vehicles and to discourage purchase of high-polluting vehicles.
Mixed Results
Bonding for the state Recreation and Natural Heritage Fund and land-acquisition matching programs was increased. Funding for sewage-treatment programs was increased from disastrously low to plain low.
Several good measures did not make it, and will be revisited next year. The lobbyists for non-alcoholic beverages spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a bill to require deposits on water bottles and healthier beverages in schools. (posted 7/20/05)