Testimony for SUPPORT of the State Water Plan AS DRAFTED
April 16, 2018
To: The Honorable Chairs and Members of the Public Health Committee, Energy and Technology Committee, Environment Committee, and Planning and Development Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters Re: Joint Public Hearing Testimony IN FAVOR of the CT State Water Plan as drafted Thank you for considering this testimony from the CT League of Conservation Voters in support of the State Water Plan as presented to you by the Water Planning Council. It is a document that represents more than a year of effort and a million dollars’ worth of in-depth work by multiple expert stakeholders and consultants. It also reflects many concessions that were made on all sides to reach this point. Unlike other legislation, ANY changes to the plan at this stage KILLS THE BILL and delays the plan for another year, possibly longer. This long overdue platform for better water management is a testament to how well our system can work when the public is involved in the decisions impacting our natural resources. People just want what is best for our water, the environment and our future. We urge you to push back against any last-minute effort by special interests to undermine the public's control of our most precious resource. "PUBLIC TRUST RESOURCE" means that water belongs to the public, is held in trust by the State, and should be managed sustainably and to the benefit of the public. CT residents overwhelmingly requested that the plan include a reference to water as a public trust resource in comments submitted to the Water Planning Council. More than 2,300 hand written letters and 4,600 petition signatures were submitted asking for this very thing. Despite this overwhelming public support, special interests are suddenly arguing that the "public trust doctrine" was a new concept and should not be in the plan. Our state’s Council on Environmental Quality has prepared a detailed statement explaining the importance of the public trust doctrine, which is included with this testimony. Also included below is a statement by many of the groups who have been working on this water plan to clarify why the document should be approved by the Joint Committees as it is currently drafted. The plan is a platform for making informed decisions which balance "in-stream needs" for the environment with "out of stream needs" for humans and the economy, and one which provides only guidance, not statutory mandates We urge legislators to take this critical step towards maintaining CT's high-quality drinking water, protection of watershed lands, increased conservation, updated drought planning, safe levels of water for our streams and rivers, and improved scientific data collection.
December 20, 2016 Testimony submitted by Lori Brown, Executive Director of the CT League Conservation Voters (CTLCV), regarding “Proposed Regulation Concerning Water Diversion Exemptions.” Tracking Number: PR2016-053
Please accept these comments from CTLCV in support of the proposed changes to the current water regulations.
Connecticut is at a critical new stage in the effort to protect our state’s increasingly threatened public waters—both for people and for the health of our environment. Systemic problems with the state’s ability to oversee and manage this precious resource were spotlighted at the legislature earlier this year. When the state’s largest water utility, the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), unilaterally decided to sell municipal water rights to a private corporation to withdraw 1.8 million gallons per day at a discounted rate during a drought, to then truck it out of state for sale at a huge profit, there was no new permit required.
All efforts to require an environmental review of this diversion were blocked by the water utility. As citizens and environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, worked to prevent this unchecked sale of municipal water, we discovered that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the Department of Public Health, and the Governor’s office had no power to intervene, and nothing in state statute allowed for even minimal state oversight.
The water bottling controversy is just the beginning of many protracted battles over who controls and manages our state’s water, and for whose benefit. Connecticut’s system of “grandfathered” permits under registrations from another era—registrations that exceed the amount of water available—must be updated. DEEP and DPH must be allowed to make decisions about this resource to reflect the present AND FUTURE water needs of our citizens AND our natural environment.
At the same time that the Water Planning Council is preparing a statewide water plan to present to the legislature in 2017, water utilities are seeking to extend their grandfathered registrations to larger service areas. This is a move backwards on comprehensive water planning.
A UTILITY SHOULD NO LONGER BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING WHEN IT MOVES WATER INTO NEWLY MERGED EXCLUSIVE SERVICE AREAS.
The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters strongly supports DEEP’s proposed regulation change as an important part of our comprehensive statewide water management planning which we believe will lead to a more transparent process and much-needed public oversight. Until then, trust in the current structure will continue to erode and battles will be fought out piecemeal. This proposed amendment to the regulations should be adopted.
February 2, 2017 To: Honorable Co-chairs and members of the Environment Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director of the CT League Conservation Voters Re: Testimony submitted regarding SB 753
The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters urges you to oppose SB753 as written, the intent of which is to delay much needed oversight of new, large scale water bottling in Connecticut.
Instead, we ask the Committee to consider substantive reforms that are needed right now to address the shortcomings of our state’s water management policies. Several key changes to current law that the committee should advance right away include: -Requiring permits for new large-scale water bottling diversions, regardless of the “grandfathered” registrations that are outdated. The state must be allowed to have some amount of oversight of new diversions to ensure they line up with our state’s current and future water resource needs -Prohibiting special discounts for high volume users that discourage conservation of our public water resources -Ensuring that Clean Water Project charges are not waived for water bottlers
The committee has an opportunity right now to put in place protections for our citizens and for the environment that are not tied to our state’s budget. Please take this opportunity to act now on behalf the public’s best interest, and help reform our current water laws. Thank you for considering this testimony. Lori Brown Connecticut League of Conservation Voters 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected] ctlcv.org
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND Connecticut is at a critical new stage in the effort to protect our state’s increasingly threatened public waters—both for people and for the health of our environment. Systemic problems with the state’s ability to oversee and manage this precious resource were spotlighted at the legislature in 2016. When the state’s largest water utility, the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC), unilaterally decided to sell municipal water rights to a private corporation to withdraw 1.8 million gallons per day at a discounted rate during a drought, to then truck it out of state for sale at a huge profit, there was no new permit required.
All efforts to require an environmental review of this diversion were blocked by the water utility. As citizens and environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters, worked to prevent this unchecked sale of municipal water, we discovered that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, the Department of Public Health, and the Governor’s office had no power to intervene, and nothing in state statute allowed for even minimal state oversight. The water bottling controversy was just the beginning of many protracted battles over who controls and manages our state’s water, and for whose benefit. Connecticut’s system of “grandfathered” permits under registrations from another era—registrations that exceed the amount of water available—must be updated. DEEP and DPH must be allowed to make decisions about this resource to reflect the present AND FUTURE water needs of our citizens AND our natural environment. At the same time that the Water Planning Council is preparing a statewide water plan to present to the legislature in 2017, water utilities are seeking to extend their grandfathered registrations to larger service areas. This is a move backwards on comprehensive water planning. The Legislature has the power to change the course of our water management policies.
Testimony to OPPOSE of HB 5503 An act concerning lake authorities and combating invasive plant and animal species.
HB 5503 Testimony Environment Committee Feb 3, 2017
My name is David Bingham. I live in Salem, CT. Thank your for this opportunity to testify on an issue that is dear to my heart, namely land and water stewardship, an issue raised by HB 5503.
While I applaud the intent of the HB 5503 proposal, I unfortunately must oppose the bill as one that would do more harm than good, since it would raid funds from the Community Investment Act.
I serve on the stewardship committee of my local Salem Land Trust, and also on Burnham Brook Preserve’s stewardship committee in East Haddam. While I also serve on the board of several other conservation organizations, I speak here of my own personal experience with stewardship.
I have been working for decades on the problem of controlling invasive species that have displaced and disrupted native species and are thus are a threat to the intricate web of nature that supports our very diverse native fauna and flora. Many plants, butterflies and animals are threatened with extinction. So I have sawed invasive trees, pulled up invasive weeds on land and in lakes, and worked with bush-hogs and clippers and hoes and mowers.
Thus I am aware of the significant cost in energy and time involved in this work, which often requires professional assistance and equipment, especially on waterways. In Salem, we do most of the work with volunteers, but much more needs to be done, work that is beyond what can be expected of volunteers. We are losing ground, and navigable water, by the hour.
While I applaud the intent of this bill to provide a source of funding for lake stewardship, taking money for this purpose from the Community Investment Act (CIA) funds is putting the cart before the horse. Sprawl and inappropriate development is the number one threat to our wildlife community.
So if we take money from the fund which is doing the most for land and water conservation, we threaten our wildlife more than we would help them by using the CIA money to control invasive species in our lakes.
Saving the land (including its waterways) must come first. So another source of stewardship funding needs to be found.
There is another bill before Environment Committee, SB 508, which needs to be raised, and could serve as a vehicle to allow municipalities, if they so choose, to impose a small (1%) fee on buyers of real estate, to provide dedicated income to fund land conservation which could include stewardship such as the removal of invasive species (including lakes and waterways) and it could also fund the planting of native species to help control erosion along our waterways. HB 6926 and HB 6946 (referred to Planning and Development Committee) are similar bills to SB 508, and specifically address funding for stewardship as well as open space conservation.
Many communities have significant public lands, including parks and schools and open spaces, which could become healthier urban oases for people and for wildlife, including birds and butterflies, if they could find funding for removing and replacing invasive species. But funding these projects is often lost in the pressure for funding education, infrastructure, pubic safety and administration.
I urge you to provide this optional fee approach to funding open space acquisition and stewardship (including invasive species funding] at the local level), without raiding the Community Investment Act.These 3 bills (SB 508, HB 6926 and HB 6946) do not affect the State budget, nor raid funds from the important CIA, and they will allow an option for communities to address land protection and stewardship without having to raise their property tax mill rates.
So my plea is for you to oppose HB 5503 and instead to raise and support SB 508 with language that would provide an option for dealing with the critical need for land conservation stewardship funding in every community in CT, including funding for invasive species removal.
Again, thank you for raising this important issue.
David B. Bingham, MD 50 White Birch Rd, Salem, CT 06420
Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 6926 An act permitting municipalities to impose a buyer’s fee on the conveyance of real property.
February 14, 2017 To: The Honorable Co-Chairs and Members of the Planning and Development Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters
Re: HB 6926
Dear Senator Cassano, Senator Logan, Representative Lemar and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify IN SUPPORT of House Bill 6926 An Act Permitting Municipalities to Impose a Buyer’s Fee on the Conveyance of Real Property.
Connecticut needs to preserve open space and provide adequate stewardship of parcels that have already been acquired. Yet the cost of doing so often falls to local city and town governments, most of which have designated other funding priorities for their strained budgets. HB 6926 has been introduced to allow municipalities the “local option” of establishing and collecting revenue for the dedicated purpose of bolstering open space acquisition and maintenance.
The “local option” is a limited conveyance or buyer’s fee on the transfer of real property or the purchase of residential real estate. The revenue generated by this fee would provide a dedicated local funding source for land conservation, including farmland, forests, and open space, as well as land stewardship, in both rural and urban communities.
In other states, municipalities and counties that have such a dedicated conveyance fee for land preservation have found that local real estate land values have been enhanced by these programs. Moreover, such programs tend to generate significant matching grants that double or triple the land protection funding in their communities.
It should be noted that the legislation being considereddoes NOT require municipalities to adopt the local option, it simply enables them to establish such a revenue source if they so desire. Any city or town that opts to establish the fee, must first pass an ordinance in compliance with their local governmental procedures.
It is also important to understand that the legislation, as currently proposed, includes protections for first-time home buyers and low-income individuals by exempting purchases of $150,000 or less from the new fee.
Municipalities do not currently have the right to impose the needed conveyance fee without State approval. The Connecticut General Assembly must pass legislation to give cities and towns permission to adopt such an option through their local ordinances.
We ask that you support this legislation and empower the local authorities of Connecticut’s extremely diverse towns and cities with the ability to actively pursue preservation of open space if they agree that it is a priority for their community.
DATE: February 16, 2017 TO: Appropriations Committee, Connecticut General Assembly FROM: Lori Brown, Executive Director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters
RE: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
Dear Co-Chairs and Honorable members of the Appropriations Committee: At a time when our environment is under severe attack at the federal level, the responsibility for protecting and preserving our precious natural resources is now being left entirely up to the states. Connecticut must NOT weaken our existing environmental laws, or roll back funding that is so desperately needed to protect the environment now more than ever.
The CT League of Conservation Voters urges you to reinstate the approximately $180,000 needed to adequately fund the Council on Environmental Quality. The Council’s autonomy to objectively report on environmental issues and attend to citizen’s concerns must be left entirely intact, both in statute and in the budget.
The CEQ is the only government entity able to effectively report on how well our state is doing in protecting our land, air, water, wildlife and climate. The Council’s official “State of the Environment” report is widely recognized as being a consistently accurate and objective assessment.
CEQ provides critical information on specific problems the state is either currently grappling with, or may not even be aware of. These “Special Reports” that have helped focus attention and identify solutions have been prepared on a range of issues, including water quality, protection of state conservation lands, invasive species, illegal tree cutting, land boundary encroachments, ATVs , air quality permits, gravel mining, mercury pollution, environmental regulation and the growth of small businesses, modernizing the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, conservation of inland wetlands, goals for state parks, and exposure to toxic chemicals. These reports often include recommendations for correcting deficiencies in state environmental laws and programs, and have led to many improvements in our environment.
The CEQ must be able to continue to investigate and help resolve hundreds of citizen complaints. Navigating our state’s regulations and the jurisdictions of various state agencies can leave the average citizen (and even the seasoned advocate) confused and unable to participate in resolving issues in their town or region. CEQ is an accessible and efficient entity to which citizens can bring complicated issues and get answers. CEQ offers unsurpassed knowledge institutional “memory” to understand and address issues—no other entity in the state provides this critical service for people and the environment.
In addition to its irreplaceable role as an investigator of citizen complaints, and producing an annual report on the state of the environment to help us identify important issues to address, the CEQ produces a bimonthly Environmental Monitor to ensure transparency of our state’s actions regarding projects, permits and enforcement.
The loss of the CEQ would be a terrific blow to the environment and leaves our state open to the worst, unchecked attacks on Connecticut’s increasingly threatened natural resources.
Thank you for considering this testimony in your budget deliberations.
Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 6313 An act establishing a tax on single-use plastic and paper bags.
February 22, 2017 To: Senator Kennedy, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco, distinguished members of the Environment Committee. From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
Re: testimony in support of HB 6313 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TAX ON SINGLE-USE PLASTIC AND PAPER BAGS
On behalf of the CT League of Conservation Voters, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of HB 6313. This initiative addresses the growing problem of single-use, disposable plastic bags while also generating desperately needed funds for our resource-starved parks and other core environmental programs at DEEP. There is a growing international movement to ban single use plastic bags because of the lasting environmental harm these bags are doing to wildlife, oceans, and landscapes.
Connecticut residents use approximately 400 million plastic bags annually. Unfortunately, studies have shown that only 5-10% of these plastic bags are properly recycled nationwide.
What happens to the other 90-95% of discarded plastic bags? Most enter the solid waste system and end up slowly degrading in landfills over hundreds of years or contribute to toxic emissions at waste-to-energy facilities. Lightweight plastic bags get blown out of trashcans, garbage trucks or landfills and pollute our waterways. Plastic bags clog gutters and sewers, get caught in trees and end up in our rivers, lakes and oceans. Non-biodegradable bags pose a threat to avian and marine wildlife, entangling them or poisoning and choking them if the animal mistakes the bag for food.
The average plastic bag is used for about 12 minutes, but can cause damage to the environment for over 1,000 years. Reducing the use of disposable shopping bags will ease the burden on our waste management system, cut down on pollution and help to protect our waterways and wildlife.
Bringing a reusable shopping bag will provide practical and economic benefits to Connecticut residents and waste management businesses. Reusable shopping bags can hold twice as many items as conventional plastic bags, do not burst under the weight of heavy items, are inexpensive and can be used many times. Improperly discarded plastic bags get stuck in the machinery that processes single stream recyclables, costing recycling facilities in repairs and the expense associated with those machines being off-line.
Retailers argue that removing plastic shopping bags from stores will harm consumers by adding an additional cost to their bill. Closer examination reveals that disposable bags are not, in fact, provided for free to customers. Stores pass the cost of plastic bags on to consumers in the price of the goods they sell. Analysis of the marketplace in California estimated that the average household paid $17 annually in higher grocery prices to cover the cost of “free” bags.
Opponents of removing plastic bags claim that stores and consumers should be left to decide what types of bags to offer and use. Unfortunately, voluntary efforts aimed at simply reducing plastic bag consumption have not yielded the results necessary to prevent their impact on the environment and wildlife.
People need to be given an incentive to choose reusable instead of plastic disposable shopping bags. In 2010, Washington, D.C. introduced a small fee on plastic shopping bags used in stores and saw an 86% reduction in consumption after just a few months. Connecticut should establish a similar fee statewide for each disposable, plastic shopping bag to both decrease consumption and encourage the use of reusable bags. Gradually, Connecticut should move to eliminate the distribution of traditional disposable shopping bags in retail stores altogether.
CTLCV supports establishing a five-cent fee on single use shopping bags to incentivize the use of reusable shopping bags, which cut down on pollution, save communities money, and create a much-needed funding source for important environmental programs in Connecticut.
We urge your support for the HB 6313 and thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate. Lori Brown CTLCV 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected]
Testimony in SUPPORT of SJ 39 A resolution approving an amendment to the state constitution to protect real property held or controlled by the state.
February 27, 2017 To: Senator Flexer, Senator McLachlan, Representative Fox and Members of the General Administration and Elections Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
Re: Testimony in support of SJ 39 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO PROTECT REAL PROPERTY HELD OR CONTROLLED BY THE STATE
CTLCV urges you to support Senate Joint Resolution 39 so it can appear as a referendum on the statewide ballot in November 2018. The General Assembly should not give away, swap, or sell public lands without an open, public process. The proposal before you would provide additional safeguards around the sale or disposal of state park and open space lands, including requiring public hearings and two-thirds votes in the state House and Senate. When it comes to selling off or giving away our state’s public parks and lands, it makes sense to hold public hearings and to guarantee that there is overwhelming support by legislators in the House and Senate that the action taken is in the public’s best interest.
There is good cause for concern about the current process of how Connecticut disposes of public land through the annual Land Conveyance bill. This process has been increasingly abused to bypass any reasonable review of the land being sold, and ultimately masks some transfers from even a minimum assessment of the land’s significance. Connecticut should follow the lead of other New England states like Massachusetts, Maine and New York to adopt state constitutional protections for the disposal of state park and open space lands.
The General Assembly passed this Joint Resolution last year with a strongly bi-partisan vote in both the Senate and the House. CTLCV applauds legislators for taking pro-environment leadership on this initiative and encourages you to support this reasonable solution to the protection of our state’s public parks and lands.
Thank you for considering this testimony. Lori Brown CTLCV 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected]
Testimony in SUPPORT of: HB 6004- Act concerning land use, zoning, wetlands and tax abatement application transparency. HB 6008- Act amending the charter of the Metropolitan District Commission to add a consumer advocate board member. SB 241-An act concerning public water system construction projects.
March 3, 2017 To: Representative Lemar, Senator Cassano, Senator Logan, distinguished members of the Planning and Development Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
On behalf of the CT League of Conservation Voters, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in SUPPORT of three bills:
HB 6004 AAC Concerning Land Use, Zoning, Wetlands and Tax Abatement Application Transparency Similar legislation was passed by the planning and Development Committee last year that would have enforced transparency for all applicants regarding local zoning, wetlands, and tax abatement processes by requiring applicants to disclose information about the identity of the property’s developers and the purpose of the application. Citizens need this information to help make good decisions about their natural resources, community character, and regional planning objectives. Involving the community with information about potential projects before they are approved is simply good government. It may also help resolve problems early in the process, and avoid a protracted battle over controversial projects that can have terrible consequences for towns. Passage of HB 6004 is consistent with the state’s commitment to open and fair government.
HB 6008 AA Amending the Charter of the Metropolitan District Commission to Add a Consumer Advocate Board Member Until now, MDC’s member towns have been inadequately informed and consulted on MDC matters that concern them. Major decisions affecting our state’s water resources controlled by MDC must include public involvement. Water planning and decisions about how it is used, sold, protected, and managed must be inclusive. MDC’s failings in the past to work with citizens about these decisions can be partly addressed by having a dedicated, INDEPENDENT, consumer advocate in place to ensure accurate and responsive two-way communication between the MDC and the public it is mandated to serve. Passage of HB 6008 is an essential first step.
SB 241: AAC Public Water System Construction Projects Last year, the Planning and Development committee took an important step to begin addressing the problem of who controls our public water supply and how our state water should be managed for the public good and future need. This bill, and others you are considering today reflect the ongoing need to address these issues. Towns and the public they represent must have a role in the major decisions on projects involving large-volume industrial water users. Communities should be given a formal mechanism to approve or challenge such a project. Passage of SB 241 would provide that.
We urge you to support these three significant bills that will improve transparency. All three will allow citizens and towns to have better and more timely information so they can be part of decisions affecting their public water and land resources.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate. Lori Brown CTLCV 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected]
Testimony in SUPPORT of: HB 6335- An act prohibiting the sale of ivory and rhinoceros horn in Connecticut. HB 942- An act concerning Cecil's Law.
Testimony toOPPOSE: SB 522- An act authorizing bear hunting in Connecticut.
March 6, 2017 To: Senator Kennedy, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco, distinguished members of the Environment Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters On behalf of the CT League of Conservation Voters, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on these three bills:
SUPPORT- HB 6335 AA PROHIBITING THE SALE OF IVORY AND RHINOCEROS HORN IN CONNECTICUT Trade in ivory and endangered species are grave international problems that are greatly impacted by how our nation and each state chooses to restrict these activities. The commercial demand for ivory has led to the illegal poaching of hundreds of thousands of elephants and rhinoceroses, which are often brutally killed for their tusks and horns. This particular poaching is a major funding source for terrorist organizations. A bill raised last year was an important effort to spotlight the role Connecticut plays in mobilization against the ivory trade and helped to spotlight this serious problem. New York and New Jersey have passed laws, and Connecticut needs to join them by passing a state ban to stop ivory traffickers. Now that our federal environmental laws are actively being dismantled, it is incumbent upon the states—including Connecticut—to actively restrict the sale of wildlife products from endangered species, including certain ivory and rhino horns. Connecticut can help stop criminals who capitalize on loopholes in the legal trade laws as a cover for illegal ivory. It is important to note that this year’s bill would not criminalize possession of ivory currently owned by Connecticut residents or prohibit inheritance or noncommercial gifts, nor would it restrict the sale or purchase by a museum, or restrict the sale or purchase of bona-fide antiques and musical instruments that meet certain requirements. We strongly support HB 6335 and ask you to pass this bill out of Committee.
SUPPORT- HB 942 AAC CECIL’S LAW An important wildlife bill before you seeks to ban the importation possession, sale or transportation in Connecticut of any of the “Big Five” endangered African species (elephants, lions, leopards, rhinoceroses, and African buffalo). With the Endangered Species Act now under direct attack at the federal level, HB 942 is an even more urgent step needed to reduce the demand for and trade of endangered species. Forty-five airlines have stopped transporting some or all types of hunting trophies, especially that of the Africa Big Five. We support amendments offered by the Humane Society, which ensure that federal law doesn't pre-empt CT's efforts, and which add the African buffalo to the list of protected species. We agree with many in our state who are calling for Connecticut to do its part in the urgently needed protection of these threatened animals before it is too late.
OPPOSE - SB 522: AAAUTHORIZING BEAR HUNTING IN CONNECTICUT CTLCV strongly opposes opening our state to bear hunting. Recent experiences in other states, such as New Jersey where there hunting was reckless and indiscriminate, or Florida, where the hunt had to be stopped when too many bears were killed in just the first year, should be a red flag against this new proposal. We need to protect our bears from a similar hunting frenzy, and preserve these bears for future generations. This bill does not serve the best interests of the public or the environment. We also agree with the Humane Society in urging you to bring up HB 5615 for a public hearing. HB 5615 would give local control to allow municipalities to determine whether or not they want to ban the cruel and indiscriminate practice of trapping wild animals.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate important wildlife concerns embodied in these bills. Lori Brown CTLCV 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected]
Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 6329 Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing Waste in Connecticut.
March 8, 2017 To: Senator Kennedy, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco and distinguished members of the Environment Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
Re: Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 6329 Concerning Hydraulic Fracturing Waste in Connecticut
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the need to permanently ban the importation of fracking waste into our state. Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, is the process of pumping fluid into ground to create fractures in rock for the production of natural gas and oil. The entire drilling and extraction process creates huge amounts of liquid and solid hazardous wastes. While fracking itself is not likely in Connecticut, our state could become a dumping ground for the unwanted waste produced from fracking in other states.
This concern prompted our State legislature to adopt a temporary moratorium on certain activities associated with fracking waste from gas drilling in Connecticut. The moratorium also mandates the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to adopt regulations for fracking waste and submit them for review. Under Public Act 14-200, the regulations are to be submitted to the Legislature between July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2018.
Fracking waste contains toxic chemicals, environmental toxins, and hazardous contaminants that are known to cause multiple cancers, organ damage, and other serious health problems. Remediation of spills or discharge of improperly treated waste would be a costly burden to taxpayers, if it can be done at all. With this in mind, the Legislature is considering proposals this session to either extend the moratorium or ban fracking waste from entering our state once and for all.
Why prohibit fracking waste in Connecticut? The drilling and extraction process of even a single shale well can produce over a million gallons of toxic radioactive wastewater and hundreds of tons of potentially radioactive solid waste. Oil and gas drilling wastes are a toxic soup of carcinogens (naphthalene, benzene, acrylamide and radium - causing breast, bone, liver and other cancers) environmental toxins (toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene - causing nervous system, kidney or liver harm) and contaminants (arsenic, lead, hexavalent chromium and radioactive radium-226 which has a half-life of 1600 yrs.) Yet, waste byproducts and brine from wells are used in some states for de-icing roads, as construction fill and brownfield capping, a concern prompting some Connecticut towns to move ahead of DEEP by passing local ordinances banning fracking waste, with additional towns currently working toward such bans. Bringing this dangerous waste to Connecticut for disposal, via thousands of additional tanker trucks on our roadways, poses the risk of accidents, spills, and contamination of private and public lands, drinking and surface waters, and costly repairs to road and publicly-owned treatment systems. Connecticut is one of the smallest and most densely populated states in the nation, and this activity would threaten resident health and risk land and water resources and property values forever. We know that waste from over10,000 fracked wells in Pennsylvania (one of the most radioactive shale deposits in the nation) is currently being shipped to at least 8 states, and Connecticut is targeted to be one of the recipients.
What needs to be done now? Citizens want the State to take action to permanently prohibit the disposal, treatment, storage, handling, de-icing applications and other uses of fracking waste and by-products anywhere in Connecticut. Like our neighboring state of Vermont, we need to take final steps to protect all 169 of our Connecticut towns and cities. CTLCV urges you to support HB 6329 to make the ban on fracking waste permanent.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate. Lori Brown CTLCV 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected]
Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 7221 An act concerning Access to Water Planning Information.
March 9, 2017 To: Senator Gerratana, Senator Somers, Representative Steinberg and distinguished members of the Public Health Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
Re: Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 7221 AAC Access to Water Planning Information
Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the need for access to water company information that is essential for the proper management of our state’s public water resources.
CTLCV urges you to restore the public’s right to know how decisions are being made about the future of our state’s most precious natural resource. A huge amount of work and negotiations have been taking place to prepare a statewide water plan. However, key information is still being withheld from the public that is needed to make informed decisions on how to best manage this important public trust resource for the greater good of our state, its citizens, and the environment.
Citizens have had to resort to complaints under the Freedom of Information Act for the most basic data about how much water is controlled by water companies, the location and quality of particular water sources, and how much water can be safely moved from one source to another place. And still, this information is being withheld from citizens who wish to provide informed input to help shape the water plan, as well as from the experts appointed by the state to present this plan to the legislature! CTLCV supports the testimony of Rivers Alliance of Connecticut presented by Margaret Miner—widely respected as a leading expert on water issues across the state and region. We defer to her testimony with regards to the specifics of what provisions are needed in HB 7221. But we echo the great frustration of citizens who have been denied access to information by the Department of Public Health and our state’s water utilities.
Connecticut is at a critical new stage in the effort to protect our state’s increasingly threatened public waters—both for people and for the health of our environment. There are systemic problems with the state’s ability to oversee and manage this precious resource, as evidenced by the ongoing battle over large, unchecked water withdrawals allowed under Connecticut’s outdated and dysfunctional system of grandfathered water registrations. It is particularly important at this time to allow for greater transparency of water data to ensure the best possible protections for our state’s water are put in place for present AND FUTURE water needs. Please support HB 7221.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate. Lori Brown CTLCV 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected]
Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 7247 An act establishing a carbon price for fossil fuels sold in Connecticut.
March 9, 2017 To: Senator Kennedy, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco and distinguished members of the Environment Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
Re: Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 7247 AAC ESTABLISHING A CARBON PRICE FOR FOSSIL FUELS SOLD IN CONNECTICUT.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of a carbon tax approach to meet our statutory climate goals. This new initiative will have significant benefits for our state. As you consider this legislation, please note that:
The bill protects businesses and the working class by sending 40% of the funds collected back to residents and 30% back to employers to make up for increase costs
25% of the funds collected go directly into job creation in the construction and renewable energy fields
Economic models show that carbon pollution pricing policies create jobs and make state economies more stable (attached)
British Columbia (Canada) has implemented a price on carbon and their economy was more stable during the global recession of 2008 than the rest of Canada
This is an important discussion that we need to start now. Climate change already affecting our state (flooding, heat, health impacts)
The bill allots up to 5% of funds collected to go directly to administrative costs. This will cover the cost of any fiscal note from DEEP or other agencies.
Fee assessed only at the first point of sale
We agree the bill still needs work, but we strongly support the concept of a carbon tax on fossil fuels given the significant climate change, air and water quality impacts that come with fossil fuels, and the slow progress our state has made on advancing renewable energy.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Lori Brown CT League of Conservation Voters 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 www.ctlcv.org
Testimony in SUPPORT of HB 5618 An act concerning an inscrease in the handling fee for bottle redemption centers.
March 9, 2017 To: Senator Kennedy, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco and distinguished members of the Environment Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
Re: Testimony in SUPPORT HB 5618 Concerning an Increase in the Handling Fee for Bottle Redemption Centers
Thank you for allowing this opportunity to comment on Connecticut’s landmark law for encouraging the recycling of beverage containers, and what we believe is necessary to update this already successful law to ensure it remains viable. As times have changed and the cost of doing business has risen, neither the deposit incentive nor the program fees have kept pace. Unless we update our “Bottle Bill” in a way that encourages consumers to increase participation and allow redeemers to earn more per container, this important law will continue to be under attack by those who want to avoid producer responsibility and those who do not make enough money to cover the cost of handling the bottle redemptions. CT is now one of ten states with such a law, commonly known as the “Bottle Bill”. The consumer pays a small deposit on a container at the time of purchase, which they fully recover if they recycle the container. The beverage distributor pays a handling fee to the retail store or redemption center for processing the returned containers. If the container is not recycled, the unredeemed deposit is instead paid to the State. Therefore, this program earns income for retailers, redemption centers, and the State. Connecticut took in an average of $29.2 million per year from 2010 to 2016.
Connecticut redemption centers make it convenient for consumers to recycle. However, the owners have been struggling for many years to keep their businesses viable, and with limited ability to maintain, update or modernize their redemption equipment, many have recently closed. Since 1986, their cost of doing business has increased, yet the handling fee (the price paid to redemption centers per container) has NOT increased in thirty years. Because the Legislature regulates the handling fee, the law must be changed to allow for an increase.
Currently, our deposit law is limited to beer, carbonated soft drinks (including mineral waters and soda waters) and noncarbonated beverages (including plain, flavored and enhanced water.) But changes in products and consumer preferences show the need to expand the bottle deposit to juices, teas, sports drinks, wine, wine coolers, and liquor. Connecticut’s bottle recycling has remained at the low rate of 58% to 50% from 2013 to 2015. There is a proposal to increase the bottle deposit to 10 cents. In states with the higher deposit, consumers return a higher percentage of containers. Connecticut can look to Iowa’s bottle deposit law, which includes wine coolers, wine and liquor bottles, and has maintained an 86% redemption rate; or Maine’s bottle deposit law, which includes all beverage containers except dairy products and unprocessed cider and has resulted in a 90% rate during the same time period.
Our current law produces high quality recyclable materials, as opposed to contaminated single stream product. Repealing this important program would increase collection and disposal costs for municipalities. It should be updated and expanded--not eliminated--as an effective waste management tool, good for the environment and the economy.
What needs to be done now? Until the Bottle Bill program is updated to reflect current handling costs, opponents of the law will continue to call for a repeal of the Bottle Bill deposit and to replace it with a non-refundable “recycling” fee to support curbside recycling. This would effectively make litter worse as containers won’t be worth anything and will discourage recycling statewide – that of individual consumers as well as non-profit groups who do high-volume recycling drives as fundraisers. Moreover, a non-refundable fee program would become a new consumer tax.
CTLCV supports HB 5618 as an effort to update this important law. Whether we increase the amount of the deposit paid, add to the number and type of beverage containers covered, increase the handling fee dispersed to retailers and redemption centers, or all the above, it is important that we further our efforts to encourage container recycling. The additional money generated from these potential improvements could be used to advance conservation efforts, help to keep redemption centers a viable business sector within our economy, and incentivize the public to recycle rather than producing more waste and litter.
Thank you for considering this testimony as you deliberate. Lori Brown CTLCV 553 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860-236-5442 [email protected]
Testimony to OPPOSE HB 7278 An act concerning the conveyance of state land.
March 20, 2017 To: Senator Flexer, Senator McLachlan, Representative Fox and Members of the General Administration and Elections Committee From: Lori Brown, Executive Director, CT League of Conservation Voters
Re: Testimony in OPPOSITION to HB 7278 (Section 3, Section 9, Section 10) AAC THE CONVEYANCE OF STATE LAND
CTLCV urges members of the GAE Committee to remove Sections 3, 9 and 10 of the land conveyance proposal legislation before you. These three parcels are of major environmental significance and should not be sold or given away as this would NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC THAT OWNS THE LAND.
*Section 3. gives away 8.46 acres of Shade Swamp Sanctuary Wildlife Management Area owned by DEEP to the town of Farmington for a cemetery. This is highly valuable land (high and dry, easy access, easily could be worth as much as $2 million in fair market value) that was acquired by the State decades ago with a grant from the White Memorial Foundation (which may need to be re-paid).
*Section 9. conveys 11.65 acres from Babcock Wildlife Management Area in Colchester to private individuals for $10,000 to get better access todevelop their property
*Section 10. conveys 10 acres of DEEP land at no cost to the town of Groton from part of a larger DEEP property near the former Mystic Oral School. This public open space will be used for unspecified economic development purposes.
HB 7278 demonstrates once again the problem with the current process of how Connecticut disposes of public land through the annual Land Conveyance bill. This process has been the subject of growing public concern and is often abused to bypass any reasonable review of the land being sold or given away. Publicly-owned land transfers should not be exempted from all current laws designed to protect our environment.
CTLCV applauds legislators on the GAE Committee for taking pro-environment leadership on the Constitutional Amendment initiative passed unanimously in your committee last week to protect our public lands. We urge you to sustain that level of commitment to the environment and remove sections 3, 9 and 10 from the land conveyances you are considering today.
Sample testimony in SUPPORT of SB 630 An act concerning clean and renewable energy opportunities and use of renewable energy sources.
Submitted by Your Name February 6, 2017
Dear Members of the Energy and Technology Committee:
I submit this testimony in support of Proposed S.B. No. 630, An Act Concerning Clean and Renewable Energy Opportunities and Use of Renewable Energy Sources. This bill would require Connecticut to update and extend its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
Possible talking points:
Connecticut’s RPS currently does not set any increase in standards beyond 2020, and the 2020 standard is not as aggressive as that of neighboring states, including New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Setting higher renewable portfolio standards is critical to meeting many of Connecticut’s environmental, energy, and economic goals.
Connecticut has made strong commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, and achieving those goals will require a transition to a clean energy economy that relies primarily on electricity generated from renewable sources.
Compliance with a higher RPS will also reduce emissions of harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury, and provide substantial health benefits for Connecticut residents.
The RPS is also good for Connecticut’s economic growth. The RPS helps drive investments in renewables by guaranteeing that there is a market for that energy and by helping those renewables become more competitive with fossil fuel-based energy that currently has a market advantage.
According to a January 2017 report by U.S. Department of Energy, there are nearly 37,000 energy efficiency and solar jobs in Connecticut. Continued expansion of renewables in Connecticut will mean more employment opportunities and economic growth.
I strongly support SB630 with the following measures to expand and extend the RPS:
Extend the RPS to require electric suppliers to gradually increase the amount of energy they supply from Class I renewable energy sources, with targets that keep pace with those in neighboring states:
at least 35% Class I renewable energy sources by 2025
at least 50% Class 1 Renewable Energy Sources by 2030; and
at least 80% from Class 1 Renewable Energy Sources by 2040
Increase the alternative compliance payment (ACP) for not meeting the Class I Renewables requirement to $67 per MWh for 2017 with an annual adjustment according to the previous year’s Consumer Price Index. Raising Connecticut’s ACP will both encourage compliance with the RPS and allow Connecticut to fairly compete in the regional market for Class I Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).
Transfer ACP funds to support green energy programs at the Connecticut Green Bank. Directing the funds to clean energy programs that have a proven track record of creating jobs and growing deployment of renewables while reducing CO2 emissions is the smartest investment Connecticut can make.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of SB 630, which would strengthen Connecticut’s Renewable Portfolio Standards and thereby help to meet our state’s climate goals while fostering local job creation and improvements in public health.
Respectfully submitted, Your Name & Contact Info, including your town
[submit via email to: [email protected]; either as an attachment or pasted into the body of an email message]
Testimony to OPPOSE HB 7134 An act concerning consent orders entered into by the commissioner of energy and environmental protection.
April 11, 2017
To: Senator Kennedy, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco and Honorable Members of the Environment Committee From: Lori Brown, CT League of Conservation Voters
As you consider voting on bills referred to the Environment Committee, we urge you to stop anti-environment initiatives that will have significant impact on our state’s ability to enforce existing environmental laws:
OPPOSE HB 7134 AAC CONSENT ORDERS ENTERED INTO BY THE COMMISSIONER OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CTLCV was strongly opposed to the same initiative last year as HB 431, which was fortunately stopped when it became clear the damage this change in law would do to DEEP’s overall ability to enforce environment laws. Enforcement of environmental protections is already extremely difficult at the local and state levels. DEEP’s duties are furthered hampered by severe budget cuts at the state and federal level. Protecting our environment is now being left entirely to the states, and this is not the time to start retreating from our own resolve to protect our air, land and water.
CTLCV asks you to soundly reject this renewed effort to bypass our state’s environmental laws and leave intact the authority of the agency charged with enforcing them. We believe that HB 7134 is misguided not only in undermining DEEP’s authority with respect to Consent Orders, but would lead to more legal battles by our backlogged judiciary branch. We appreciate your effort to cast your votes with the protection of our environment in mind. Please contact our office at 860-236-5442, if you have questions or comments about this legislation or any of the bills we are currently tracking on our website at www.ctlcv.org
Thank you.
Additional Background from DEEP: We are very concerned about a bill that is on today’s Environment Committee agenda, House Bill No. 7134 – An Act Concerning Consent Orders Entered into by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. This bill would prohibit the Department from revoking consent orders without the agreement of all parties.
The Department uses consent orders to work more collaboratively with businesses to remedy environmental violations. The consent order allows us to work towards compliance without the burden to both parties of a unilateral order of the Commissioner, which will likely be adjudicated. While the consent order is agreed upon by both parties, it is, by statute, an order of the Commissioner which can be revoked (for example if a party refuses to follow the terms of the order for an extended period of time). Revocation of a consent order is exceedingly rare and is a last resort. By preventing the Department from having the authority to revoke an order, this bill would embolden bad actors to flout the terms of consent orders, knowing the agency will seek, whenever possible, to avoid litigation.
There are also circumstances where the department is asked to unilaterally revoke an old consent order to facilitate a property transfer or development (such as when the original party cannot be reached). The language of this bill would appear to prohibit this.
The takeaway is this: If this bill passes, it will weaken an important tool we have used with great success to remedy hundreds of violations – most often to the mutual benefit of all parties.
We urge you please vote no on House Bill No. 7134.
A letter to Governor Malloy and Commissioner Klee asking them to uphold our efforts to address climate change and strengthen the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
July 21, 2017
Governor Dannel P. Malloy Office of the Governor State Capitol 210 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106
Commissioner Rob Klee Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106
Dear Governor Malloy and Commissioner Klee,
The groups signed below would like to thank you for your continued strong leadership in addressing climate change, and urge your administration to advocate for a significant strengthening of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) during the current program review process, beyond a continuation of today’s overly modest carbon cap decline.
The RGGI states have been national leaders on climate change and should continue to lead by adopting an ambitious carbon cap for the power sector through 2030. The updated policy scenario modeling presented at the June 27th stakeholder meeting shows that more stringent cap trajectories can be achieved with a far smaller impact on power prices and RGGI allowance prices than previously modeled. Given Connecticut’s participation in the U.S. Climate Alliance and recent statements about the importance of climate action, supporting the least ambitious path forward on RGGI would be inconsistent.
We support, and hope Connecticut will work with the other States for, the adoption of an annual cap reduction that is at least as ambitious as the 3.5% per year reduction modeled in Scenario #2. The recent ICF modeling makes clear that reductions of this magnitude are achievable, particularly now that the projected cost of reducing emissions has fallen dramatically from what the states were predicting even a few months ago. This is due to several favorable trends, including stronger renewable energy and energy efficiency policies adopted by several RGGI states over the last year, continued declines in the cost of renewable energy technologies like wind and solar, and continued low natural gas prices reflected in the newer modeling. Lower-cost emission reductions mean the states should be able to achieve even more reductions economically in the coming years. Indeed, independent analysis has shown that a cap reduction of 5% per year would lead to even greater benefits and help the states cost effectively achieve their 2030 climate goals.
We also support resetting the RGGI cap in 2019, as reflected in Scenario #3, which is intended to better reflect current emission trends and expectations in that year. This will help to align the RGGI cap with the faster-than-expected rate of emission reductions in the region and restore RGGI’s carbon price signal and proper market function. Such a correction is consistent with the approach the states took in the 2012 program review in which they reset the cap in 2014 to reflect actual emissions levels while committing to additional reductions in later years. We encourage the RGGI states to adopt such a correction in their forthcoming Model Rule.
Thank you again for your leadership, both with the programs your administration has advanced and in your public statements, on the need for urgent action to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases as quickly as possible. We welcome any questions you or your staff may have and would be glad to discuss in person in a meeting.
Testimony on the Governor's Executive Order Number 59, which calls for DEEP and PURA to assess the current and projected economic viability of the Millstone nuclear generating facilities
August 14, 2017
Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Public Utilities Regulatory Authority 10 Franklin Square New Britain, CT 06051
Re: DOCKET NO. 17-07-32 - DEEP AND PURA JOINT PROCEEDING TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 59
Please accept these comments from the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters regarding a study of the financial condition and projected viability of the Millstone power plant. Before Connecticut state lawmakers and our Governor can decide critical energy policies that will have a profound effect on how our state moves ahead—or backslides—on renewable energy, they must have the facts.
The effort to give Dominion Power unprecedented access to ratepayer funds for its Millstone nuclear plant has not been justified by any hard data, and could undercut clean energy growth in Connecticut. Unless a study conducted by independent reviewers can show otherwise, our state should not act on Dominion’s assertion that it is currently in financial distress and needs Connecticut ratepayers' help.
When the study is conducted, we urge you to consider the following
Recent market analysis shows that Millstone has generated positive cash flow in each of the last five years of its operation.
A recent report by Bloomberg Intelligence estimates nuclear subsidies could cost New England ratepayers $3.9 billion annually.
Millstone provides energy to the entire Northeast region, not just Connecticut. If Millstone were truly in financial trouble, it could seek assistance regionally through ISO-NE, not just from CT ratepayers.
If CT ratepayers are paying for nuclear, there will be less money to invest in new, renewable sources.
Connecticut’s energy policy should be focused on clean, renewable energy growth, not subsidies for shareholders.
Millstone must disclose its plant-specific, audited, financial reports
The study should be broad and include an analysis of carbon pricing and carbon cap & trade policies. Putting a price on carbon beyond those already imposed by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative might help Millstone compete with natural gas in the short-term, without the need to subsidize a long-term, direct contract that ratepayers would be left paying for.
The study should include analysis of what CT needs to do to ensure real renewables (such as wind and solar) can replace Millstone at license expiration.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments, and for your commitment to protecting both the environment and the ratepayers of Connecticut. Sincerely,
Lori Brown, Executive Director CT League of Conservation Voters 553 Farmington Ave., Suite 201 Hartford, CT 06006 860-236-5442 [email protected] www.ctlcv.org
