LEARNING & EXPLORING
Legislative Update - 5/29/07
National Legislation - Official Wild & Scenic National Designation
5/25/06
Despite spending only one minute being briefed on the Eightmile Wild
& Scenic designation at a recent Natural Resources subcommittee
hearing, the Senate has completed the initial step to move the legislation
forward. Senate Bill 553, with accompanying written testimony from the
local Coordinating Committee and from Senator Dodd was then referred
to markup and other stops along the way to a final vote.
In mid April, the House version of the Bill (HR986) was taken up at
a subcommittee hearing, passed through the markup process, the full
Natural Resources committee and was then referred to the House floor
for a vote. Congressmen Courtney testified in person for the House hearing
as did Nathan Frohling, vice-chair of the Eightmile Coordinating Committee.
While the House hearing spent more time than the Senate reviewing the
Eightmile bill, it was obvious that the strong local support and lack
of controversy would make the trip to the President’s desk a much
smoother process than was the case in the previous Congress.
Connecticut
The following highlights were provided by River's Alliance of CT. Opinions contained herein are not necessarily those of the Eightmile River Wild & Scenic Coordinating Committee.
The bill (HB 5234) to ban lawn pesticides on school grounds through 8th grade, is doing well. It passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly, but picked up an amendment (reportedly harmless) in the Senate, which mean it has to go back to the House. Advocates must be vigilant to ensure that the bill isn't sidetracked. The campaign to reduce pesticide use is vitally important to human and ecological health. According to the US Geological Survey, all US rivers and streams contain pesticides.
The bill (HB 1182) to require an opportunity for public and notice and comment before publicly owned land is transferred to a town or private party hit a bit of a snag today, but the CEPA group's first responders cleared the obstacle. We hope it will pass next week. The purpose of this bill is to guard against giveaways of high-quality open space, as happened with the Norwich Hospital property.
The General Assembly has yet to agree on an energy bill. Battles rage, and the drafts change every day. There are good provisions and bad, lots of money at stake, and a myriad of implications for our economy and environment. More information on request.
The budget is still in play, but it looks as if helpful funding will come through for the Clean Water Fund (municipal sewage-treatment projects), science studies of key river basins, and possibly The Face of Connecticut ( a coalition program for joint funding of open space, farmland, historic structures, smart--growth projects, and so forth.) The Face coalition includes premier conservation groups, and should do even better next year.
The bill to ban nursing homes and the like from flushing medications into public waters died of neglect in the Judiciary Committee, but we will be working with its sponsor (Rep. Terry Backer), medical stakeholders, and others over the summer to develop a bill that will pass.
Two bills that deal with the environmental impacts of packaged sewage treatment plants are still alive. These treatment plants are basically mini-sewage-treatment facilities that are advertised as a good solution for development where there isn't room for traditional septic and no sewers are in place. One bill calls for a one-year moratorium (HB 6402) on installing any these systems, and the other (HB 6768) transfers authority over some of the small systems from DEP to Department of Public Health. Having listened to many hours of discussion from all interested parties, I can report that while a "moratorium" is problematic, a moratorium under another name ("breathing spell to think," or "time out," or "slow-down") has considerable support. There is significant confusion over what conditions should be in the permits for these plants, what their performance record is, why there is so little oversight or enforcement, whether any authority has the legal right to close down a non-performing facility, and so on. The good news is that the controversy is likely to bring interested parties together in the upcoming year to solve some of the problems.
Unfortunately, the highest profile fight has involved the BOTTLE BILL. This extension of bottle deposits to small containers of non-carbonated beverages has been fought fiercely by supermarkets and lobbyists. At Stop & Shop or Big Y, there are loudspeaker announcements urging customers to vote against this bill, and every customer gets a provocative and misleading handout urging rejection of the bottle bill. The chief handout, for example, shows cans and bottles in clear plastic bags and the same items in an uncovered curbside container. The text asks whether you would prefer to deal with the "dirty" items in the bags or the presumably clean items in the container. (Then the text adds, "This message was printed on recycled paper." Funny.)
As far as I know supporters of the bottle bill also support all other recycling programs, but if you've dodged swarms of yellow jacks around open containers, you know that one method is not inherently cleaner than the other. Supermarkets vigorously market high-priced, small-container beverages, but they do not want themselves or their customers to be responsible for the refuse. Their preferred method is municipal pickup underwritten by taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford to buy these little luxury items.
All indications are the BOTTLE BILL WOULD PASS THE LEGISLATURE IF BROUGHT TO A VOTE. It passed the Senate and was ready to go to a vote in the House, when the leadership sent it to the Coca-Cola Committee (also called the General Law Committee), where one of the co-chairs represents a district that includes a Coca-Cola bottling plant for water, juice, etc. Naturally, the bill was voted down. Today, House Speaker Jim Amann told the Courant that efforts to revive the bill in the Senate would fail. "We live and die by the process. It's dead ..." [...]
I'm stumped. Speaker Amann has professed interest in environmental issues.
This bill was well framed. It is supported (with a white paper) by
the CT League of Women Voters, almost all environmental groups in
the state, and the editorial boards of the Hartford Courant, the New
York Times Regional Section, and others. I've spoken with the managers
of two S&S stores, and have written corporate headquarters in
Quincy, Mass., and the S&S corporate parent in the Netherlands.
I'm sending them my shopping card and a nice, clean bottle. Addresses
are: Jose Alvarez, President, Stop & Shop, 1385 Hancock St., Quincy,
MA 02169 The telephone is 1-800-767-7772 (but they'll try to get rid
of you). Emails hard to find. The Dutch are more inviting: Anders
Moberg, President, Royal Ahold (corporation), Piet Heinkade 167-173,
1019 GM, Amsterdam, Netherlands. tel, +31-(0)20- 509 51-00. They have
a director of sustainability (!), Casper van Zijl, sustainability@ahold.com.
Their v.p. for public affairs in the US is Barry Scher at 301-341-4710.
Margaret Miner
CT's United Voice for River & Watershed Conservation
Rivers Alliance of Connecticut
7 West St., Suite 33, POB 1797
Litchfield, CT 06759
Tel: 860-361-9349
E-mail: rivers@riversalliance.org
web: www.riversalliance.org
CONTACTS: Margaret Miner
and Rose Guimaraes