“MORE” Hope for Conservation

By David Bingham

The legislature's new Municipal Organization and Regional Efficiency committee (MORE) provides a forum for reviewing how municipalities get revenue and how they can do so more efficiently in a time of economic crisis.

Connecticut is one of the few remaining states in which local property taxes are the major source of municipal funding.  The result is a desperate scramble for development, seeking to raise the local grand list in an attempt to lower the local property tax rates.  All too often, the result is inappropriate development that has a deleterious impact on the community's natural resources and sustainability, with minimal if any overall local tax relief.

Moreover, developments such as new shopping malls may have adverse economic impacts to a region, drawing investment out of our cities and adding energy and transportation inefficiency to the costs of society.

Unfortunately, when municipal budgets get squeezed in economic downturns, things like open space preservation, clean air and water projects, alternative transportation improvements, and energy efficiency commitments often are the first things cut, since their benefits are longer-term while the costs come up front. 

Thus, our tax policy drives unsustainable development and poor planning.  And conservationists should have a lot to contribute to the conversation. Alternative funding streams for municipalities will have to be available if they are to escape the scramble for property-tax revenue that is so destructive.

Fortunately, there are examples from other states that provide some exciting alternatives.  They include dedicated conveyance fees for conservation funding, environmental impact fees, regionalized property tax collection, and sales and income tax options at the local and regional level.  It is critical, from an environmental standpoint, that such new revenue streams don't simply bloat the local budges, but do in fact lower property taxes if they are implemented. 

Moreover, it is critical that such approaches be instituted in a way that keeps the revenue stream more steady.  Otherwise, future planning becomes impossible and caution cuts into the investments needed for natural resource conservation and mitigation.

Rep. Elissa Wright (D-Groton) is a good choice to co-chair the MORE subcommittee that will address these tax issues.  As a committed conservationist herself with an excellent record on environmental issues and experience with local boards and commissions, she should be counted on to provide quiet but steady leadership to help aim the ship of state in a course away from its reliance on local property taxes for community services.

The committee findings and its recommendations will be of great interest and importance to all who care about the sustainability of our municipalities.

David Bingham, MD, is Co-Chair of the CTLCV Board of Directors

The Future of Cars

If you’re interested in the connection between transportation, energy, and the environment, you’ll like the recent Bob Edwards Weekend interview with Paul Ingrassia, author of "Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry's Road from Glory to Disaster."

Ingrassia, who spent 31 years with the Wall Street Journal, talks about the evolution of the auto industry, the bailout packages, and the future of electric and hybrid vehicles.

Ingrassia comments that

“A lot of what’s going to happen with alternative car technologies depends on American federal policy.

You tell me what gas prices are going to be, and I’ll tell you what kind of cars Americans are going to buy.”

Confirming what a lot of us already suspected, Ingrassia says, “Americans have only switched to smaller, more efficient cars, when confronted with gas prices of $3.50 or $4 a gallon or above.  If gas prices drop down to $2 a gallon in the next couple years, I wouldn’t bet on electric cars.”  You can listen to the full  Bob Edwards Weekend interview with Ingrassia at http://podcast.com/episode/49804010/32910/?cp=1125 (audio only).  You’ll learn about the likes of “inverse layoffs,” GM’s restroom segregation system and much, much more!

Or if you prefer video, watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Ingrassia here.   (Skip ahead to about 13:15 for the interview.)

And speaking of what’s going to happen with American transportation policy, try to make tomorrow’s panel discussion at on “Transportation in Connecticut: Strengthening the Federal Investement in Your Ride."  1:30 at Union Station in Hartford.  For further information contact Gloria Mills at gmills.cact@snet.net. 

If You Care About Connecticut's Streams & Rivers, Please Raise Your Voices Now

An Open Letter from Margaret Miner, CTLCV Director and Executive Director of Rivers Alliance

We who care about and use rivers have waited 40 years for relief from low flows and degraded waters that can't support river fish.

Public Hearing on Stream Flow Regulations

Thurs January 21, 2010 at 9 am

DEP:  79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT

Starting in the 1970s, the state has committed in principle to protecting streams and rivers. But not until this year has a regulation been proposed that would come anywhere near setting protective standards for flow in rivers, standards that would cure the chronic human-made droughts that hit some of our rivers year after year. By our count about 60 streams are impaired or threatened by low flows.

That flow-protection regulation will go to a public hearing on the morning of Thursday, January 21, at the DEP, 79 Elm Street, Hartford. The regulation is bitterly opposed by water diverters, especially water companies and other utilities. Some of these water takers want no restraints on their ability to divert this public resource to use as they see fit. If you care about the streams and rivers of this state, please raise your voices now. Because if you do not, we river advocates will be shouted down by well funded opponents who are determined to kill this regulation. They may very well succeed.

The regulation was developed over the past five years by the DEP in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including utilities. The science behind it is outstanding. At the same time, the protections for utilities and public drinking water are very strong; in fact, so many concessions have been made to utility interests that we will be asking for some fixes. For example, the DEP, at the insistent request of utilities, has added a category of throw-away rivers. These are so-called Class 4 rivers, which are deemed basically hopeless. If one of these rivers runs through your community, too bad for you and the fish.

I don't want to burden you all in this post with tons of content. Many of you know the issue. Many of you worked on the 2005 legislation that mandated the creation of the proposed regulation. But I and many colleagues do want to offer you any and every kind of help to comment and be heard. Leaders in the effort include The Nature Conservancy, Housatonic Valley Association, Trout Unlimited, Farmington River Watershed Coalition, Sierra Club, Quinnipiac River Watershed Association and others, with CT Fund for the Environment offering legal help.

We can make available to individuals and groups, explanation of the regulations, comments on the features that are good or bad, fact sheets, answers to frequently asked questions, and sample testimony. Some of this material is available on our website with a front-page link, including details on the public hearing.  The website is www.riversalliance.org.

WE HAVE THREE VERY URGENT REQUESTS.

1. January 21st: If at all possible, please come to the DEP for the start of the public hearing at 9 a.m. River advocacy groups will be there to help you. We'll even have have badges: Save Our Rivers ! (We're not usually so pushy. But this is an unusual situation.)
2. Please submit written testimony for the hearing on the 21st or at some point in the comment period, which extends to February 4th. We will help with any questions as to how to do this. All written comments MUST be considered by the DEP, so this is important. Comments should go to Paul Stacey, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106. Comments must be signed. (We can help with delivery.)
3. Please let your legislators and town officials know if you favor provisions to protect rivers. They are hearing only one side of the story. There are low-flow rivers all over the state. Point them out.  Find your legislators and their contact information at http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CGAFindLeg.asp.

The regulation is complex, and Rivers Alliance will be glad to arrange presentations if you are interested. But the core message is: THE REGULATION IS A REASONABLE, BALANCED PROTECTION FOR OUR RIVERS. WE HAVE WAITED FORTY YEARS FOR THIS DAY. LET'S FIX WHAT NEEDS FIXING AND GET THIS PASSED.

River advocates and water companies share a common interest in protecting the resource for the future. But water utilities have backed themselves into a bad corner, with an unsustainable business structure that requires sales of more and more water to generate revenue. A couple of rainy summers, when people use less water, means financial pain. But the answer to the pain is to create a sustainable business plan not to keeping taking more water out of rivers. This is New England. We have plenty of water for fish and faucet. Our water is a huge economic asset that we are hugely mismanaging. This regulation will prompt good management.

Please let me know if you can come to Hartford, submit testimony, or both. Rivers Alliance contact information is below. 

Margaret Miner (rivers@riversalliance.org)
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut
7 West Street, POB 1797
Litchfield, CT 06759
Tel: 860-361-9349
Fax: 860-361-9341
Cell: 203-788-5161
www.riversalliance.org

Margaret Miner is a Director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters and Executive Director of Rivers Alliance.  

A Step Forward for Transit Funding

Taking a major step forward in federal transportation policy, US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced this week that the federal government would start taking factors like energy efficiency, economic development and reduced emissions into account when deciding which state and local transportation projects get federal funding.

This policy shift will make it easier for cities and states to get federal money for public transit projects, such as the streetcar and light-rail systems for which demand has grown in recent years.

Addressing thousands of engineers, academics and transportation officials at an annual transportation research conference this week, LaHood, remarked that

“Our old ways of doing business didn’t value environmental, community and economic benefits enough,”

according to a New York Times story.LaHood is a Republican and former Illinois congressman known for his support for transit and liveable cities and an ability to work effectively across party lines.

Previously, the overriding factors in awarding federal funding for transit projects were cost and time-in-transit savings. Those factors are still part of the decision-making process for funding through “New Starts,” the federal government's major transit grant program that distributes funds for transit projects, but no longer are they more important than things like congestion relief, energy efficiency, or emissions reductions.

Not only have the federal funding criteria for transit projects been in need of reform, but so is the timeframe for awarding federal money for transit projects. It takes an average of 10 years for transit projects to move through planning and design phases to receive a grant through the New Starts program. LaHood wants to shorten that timeframe significantly, as does Transportation & Infrastructure congressional committee chair Congressman James Oberstar (D-MN), who backs the proposed Surface Transportation Authorization Act now before Congress.

Further, according to Transportation for America, we as a country are not investing as we need to in a transportation system that will make us competitive in the global economy. Funding available for transit projects is nowhere near the demand. Only a small percentage of transit project applicants get any federal funding, and then, the federal government tends to match only about 50% of the local funding provided for the project. In contrast, the federal government matches about 80% of the local funding put up for highway projects, perpetuating an American car-based culture that is making us fat, sick and a big part of the world’s greenhouse gas problems.

If it is enacted, the proposed Surface Transportation Authorization Act could make some headway on reducing the disparity between transit and highway funding. In the proposed bill, transit would get about a 22% allotment of the $450 billion bill, inching up from the 18% share that the last major piece of transportation legislation, known as SAFETEA-LU, allotted for transit.

CTLCV supports smart transit and transportation policies for a competitive, sustainable Connecticut.

Sources:

• The Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, "A Blueprint for Investment and Reform": http://transportation.house.gov/
• Transportation for America: http://t4america.org/blog/2010/01/13/feds-announce-change-to-consider-livability-in-funding-transit-projects/
• New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/us/14streetcar.html
• Streetsblog Capitol Hill: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2010/01/13/big-transit-news-bush-era-rule-tossed-enviro-benefits-on-the-table/ and http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/06/18/oberstars-new-transportation-bill-get-the-highlights/