TESTIMONY OF VAL WASHINGTON
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES OF NEW YORK
(Delivered by Jeff Jones, Communications Director)

BEFORE THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
and
THE ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 27, 2002

Chairman Stafford, Chairman Farrell and members of the committees, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Governor's proposed budget for fiscal year 2002-2003. I will also be addressing issues related to the current fiscal year and Governor Pataki's proposed deficiency budget. But let me begin by taking this opportunity to recognize and welcome Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli as the new chair of the Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee. Chairman DiNapoli has played an important role in some of the state Legislature's important environmental achievements in recent years, including passage of the state pesticide registry law, the neighbor notification law and important local controls of jet skis. We look forward to working with Chairman DiNapoli and Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Chair Carl Marcellino to continue to build on this important record of achievement.

I am the executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York, a leading state environmental group with over 5,000 members and more than 130 affiliated local, state and national groups. We advocate on a range of environmental, health and energy issues. As you are aware, we also advise members of the Legislature as bills appear on committee agendas that we believe will have a significant impact on New York's environmental health. Last year we distributed over 130 memos to the membership.

Our discussion today takes place in the context of the recession and horrific September 11 attacks on our state and our country. New York's priorities and needs have changed. We are only just beginning what will be a long and difficult road to economic revitalization and the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan. We are very much aware that the state will not be able to pay for many important programs that all of us would like to see, but we also strongly believe that continuing to invest in clean water and clean air and protecting public health and the state's natural resources are important to a solid economic, as well as spiritual, recovery.

The Environmental Protection Fund is the most important, and was meant be the most reliable, source of funding for New York's environment. The Legislature created the EPF in 1993, after a several year period during which there was no money available for crucial environmental projects that didn't fit into regular agency operations budgets. These projects included open space purchases, landfill closures, and recycling, among others. The EPF account has been receiving funds from dedicated sources, mostly from the state's Real Estate Transfer tax. At a minimum, there should be at least $125 million added to the EPF annually. Despite the fact that the Governor and both houses of the Legislature proposed spending much more than this amount in the current fiscal year, ultimately no appropriation was made for EPF spending in last fall's negotiated budget. When this startling fact became clear to us, we helped form a coalition that has since grown to more than 50 groups in support of what we believe represents a responsible, baseline $125 million appropriation before March 31, 2002, the end of the current fiscal year, and at least another $125 million in next year's budget. In light of a needs assessment conducted by the environmental community last year, we hope that you understand that this amount is truly bare-bones funding for the environment. In fact, we now believe that the Environmental Protection Fund should be expanded to at least $300 million annually as soon as possible. That can be accomplished, by the way, simply by increasing the annual contribution from the current dedicated funding source, the real estate transfer tax.

We were gratified when Governor Pataki presented his budget plan in January, and proposed minimum EPF funding of $125 million in a current fiscal year deficiency budget and another $125 million next year. Unfortunately, the Governor then proposed to off-load $23 million worth of General Fund environmental projects into the EPF, significantly reducing its effectiveness and setting a precedent that undermines the fundamental purpose of the EPF - to provide for critical environmental projects, in good times and bad, that are not part of regular agency operations. The Governor then proposed to "sweep," his word, another $100 million from the EPF account into the General Fund for unspecified purposes.

Environmental Advocates of New York is opposed to both the off-loading of what amounts to $46 million of EPF funding over two years and we are opposed to the $100 million sweep. We, and all our members, urge you to resist the Governor's raid of the EPF. Let me explain why.

In bringing together representatives of the many constituencies that care about the Environmental Protection Fund, all of us have become more aware of the wide range of essential work it now supports, much of it related to the long term environmental health of our state - this is our environmental legacy.

We learned, for example, that applications to the agriculture and farmland preservation programs funded by the EPF last year totaled more than $75 million. Each of these applications - such as those for the purchase of development rights, as part of a program launched by the Governor in 1996 to protect farmland from development pressure - requires a significant investment of time by the applicant farmer and the supporting local municipality. If the current budget is passed as is, there will be only $6 million a year for these programs, a fraction of the current need. Some of the farm families involved simply cannot afford to stay in business much longer as suburbia spreads ever outward increasing land values. It also becomes too expensive to pass farmland on to the next generation and selling out to developers becomes the only option. Because family farms also need to be part of a larger farming culture to survive, protection of the occasional farm here and there is not sustainable. What is at stake is the loss to New York State of a way of life, of valuable farmland and family stewardship of the environment, and of the scenic vistas that make many regions of the state so breathtakingly beautiful.

We learned that applications for park preservation projects similarly far outweigh the available funding, and about the threat to New York's popular open space program. During his seven years in office, Governor Pataki has preserved more than 350,000 acres for future generations to enjoy. And this year, he has proposed saving another million acres over the next decade. But the money available to accomplish this task is currently just $33 million per year. That's a decline of nearly 50 percent, when considered with the fact that all available open space funds from the 1996 environmental bond act have been spent. In the Adirondacks, tens of thousands of forest acres are available for permanent acquisition and protection. And on Long Island, the situation is stark: any land not saved now will be developed by the end of the decade, thereby determining the island's fate for generations to come.

And there are other crucial environmental projects that rely on a fully funded EPF:
- Soil and water conservation districts. These districts have already begun to lose staff as a result of the failure to appropriate any EPF funds in the current fiscal year. These workers serve on the front lines of some of New York's most important clean water and anti-pollution initiatives.
- County recycling coordinators. Not only is recycling the law, but it saves municipalities money in avoided landfill costs. Once these programs are dismantled, it will cost much more to start them up again, and to regain the momentum we will lose when the public gets out of the habit of recycling.
- Hudson River Natural Resource Damage Assessment. As part of the Hudson River cleanup, $1.3 million has been appropriated annually from the EPF to develop the multi-million dollar damage assessment claim against the polluter. This will eventually be recouped in the form of replacement costs for amenities lost due to the pollution in the River.
- Breast cancer research. Since its passage by the Legislature in 1996, the state pesticide registry has had EPF funding. The data gained from the registry promotes our understanding of the causes of diseases such as cancer, enabling scientists to match the use of toxic chemicals to public health data.

The list goes on. We do not agree with the Governor and Department of Environmental Commissioner Erin Crotty when she says that the $146 million in two-year off loads and sweep will not affect the integrity of the Fund. As we have already said, we believe that a clear case has been made, instead, to expand the Fund. If an expansion cannot be accomplished at this time, at the very least, the dedicated revenue in the EPF account should by used as it was intended - for important environmental projects across the state.

We also object to the use of $10 million worth of funding for the Onondaga Lake cleanup project over the next two years. Onondaga County is operating under a court ordered consent decree to clean up Onondaga Lake, the most polluted lake in the country. The cleanup is estimated to cost over $1 billion. The 1996 Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act included $200 million for the project, which has been spent. Clearly, this project alone could use up all the funds in the EPF for a decade or more. This was not the Legislature's intended use of the Fund in 1993. Responsible management of the Onondaga Lake project demands significant funding independent of the EPF.

Finally, we must also address the issue of the bankrupt state Superfund. Governor Pataki has proposed an appropriation of $138 million to keep the cleanup of New York's most toxic contaminated sites moving forward. At present, the program is barely alive and no new projects can be launched. Yet, for about $280 million a year, it should be possible to devise a plan to clean up all listed state Superfund sites and many brownfields as well. The key is maintaining the polluter pays principle. Governor Pataki has been a vocal supporter of the principle - unlike President George W. Bush, who seeks to shift the cost of pollution cleanups entirely from those responsible to the federal taxpayers. In New York, we can do better. Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis has introduced a bill that would guarantee a successful Superfund program by increasing fees and other costs to polluters. This proposal, which is annually supported by New York's Earth Day Lobby Day coalition and many individual groups, would solve one of our most pressing environmental problems, protecting public health and state taxpayers.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.