ELM Home

Collaborative

Issues

Jobs and Volunteering

Join/Donate

Activist Tools

Links

Directions

Earth Night

To: Chairman Murray, Chairman Rogers, and Members of the Committees on Ways and Means
From: Pamela DiBona, Vice President for Policy
Date: March 28, 2003

RE: Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Testimony

Cuts to environmental programs impact all residents of Massachusetts, whether they breath the air or drink the water. The Environmental League of Massachusetts works with more than 50 organizations across the state to bring their concerns to you at the state house, through the Massachusetts Environmental Collaborative. This testimony is presented on behalf of both the Environmental League and several members of the Collaborative, including: Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions, Massachusetts Association of Health Boards, Merrimack River Watershed Association, Nashua River Watershed Association, and the Taunton River Watershed Association.

We are fully aware of the current fiscal crisis in Massachusetts - environmental programs have already seen their share of cuts over the past fiscal year. We do not envy your position as you seek to assess needs and wants and the funding available for each. Already, though, the environmental programs are falling short of where they should be, and our natural resources and the public's health are showing the effects. For example:

• Restrooms and other facilities at our state parks are closed, and rangers are few and far between. These conditions compromise public safety at campgrounds, beaches, and forests; open the system to border encroachment and illegal dumping; and leave the parks at risk if fires were ever sparked. Park properties do not comply with public health and safety codes, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Clean State Initiative. We cannot afford any more cuts that affect the parks.
• Existing laws go unenforced. The average environmental permitee in Massachusetts can expect an on-site inspection only once every 17 years. The Licensed Site Professionals oversight board is has only two lawyers and two investigators - already causing it to fall behind in its important job of investigating complaints against the private consultants entrusted with cleaning hazardous waste sites across the commonwealth. The Environmental Police Force is short 28 officers, and is unable to adequately enforce existing laws on the water or inland, nor can they provide adequate backup to inspectors or the Attorney General's office. Citizens are exposed to air pollution, contaminated water, and hazardous chemical spills - and no one is there to protect them. We cannot afford any more cuts to enforcement.
• Our coastal waters, rivers, lakes, and ponds provide a livelihood for our fishermen, recreational opportunities for our families, and habitat for wildlife. Yet without a comprehensive monitoring program we have no idea whether these needs are safely being met. A real partnership with nonprofit organizations that work in the watersheds is critical to meeting this challenge. We cannot afford to cut off assistance via local grant programs.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's summary table of state spending from 2000 (the latest year for which data are available), Massachusetts ranked only 44th out of 50 states in natural resource spending per capita, and 48th as a proportion of the total budget. We've only lost ground since FY2000, with an overall cut to environmental programs of 23 percent between FY01 and FY03. And while money does not always buy results, we simply cannot achieve the results we all look for without adequate funding.

It is in this context that environmental organizations from across the commonwealth call on you in the legislature to maintain adequate funding for environmental protection. We have several concerns with House 1, detailed below, that we hope you will address in your own budget proposals.

• Some of the administrative funds for the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs have been consolidated into the new Office of Commonwealth Development. The Governor has not stated, however, which EOEA functions will being carried out in the new office. We do not agree that the Mass. Environmental Policy Act should be implemented in that office, and hope that before you endorse the Governor's reorganization plan that you fully explore all of the impacts that will result.
• The Governor has collapsed many line items into only a few, without any information as to how the work will be carried out. For example, in the proposed Division of Conservation and Recreation, there is no way to discern the administration's commitment to seasonal staff in our parks, to metro parks vs. the other state parks or to resource protection, planning and management. The parks system must be managed in a way that serves all of the residents of Massachusetts.
• If the Governor's proposal passes, there is no way the environmental agencies can continue to carry out the important mandates the legislature has put to them. For example, if the Governor's proposal becomes law, we've been told that the Department of Environmental Protection alone will lose 200 FTEs, on top of the 180 already lost in the last fiscal year. The already lax enforcement at DEP will only get worse with additional loss of staff.
• Environmental Secretary Roy Herzfelder and Chief of Commonwealth Development Doug Foy have both stated that enforcement of existing laws is a high priority for the Romney Administration. We do not see how that can be reconciled with proposals in House 1 to:
• Move agency attorneys to a central Office of Solicitor General, and reduce the number of attorneys. Attorneys for the environmental agencies are experts in their fields, and know the ins and outs of Massachusetts' environmental rules and regulations. How will enforcement fare if child welfare law experts are put on the case? How will enforcement decisions be impacted by removing attorneys from union protection?
• Cut the budget for the LSP Board, which is already falling behind in its charge to keep private companies accountable for the messes they've made? (Line item 2260-8881, cut by 1/3 compared to FY03. This board oversees private consultants hired by landowners to clean up hazardous waste sites under Chapter 21E.)
• Security for Massachusetts citizens includes having information about the whereabouts of hazardous materials, and prompt response to hazardous chemical spills or releases. However, the Governor proposes a $465,075 cut in line item 2260-8870/Hazardous waste incidence response. Security should not be a buzzword, but a reality for our citizens.
• The Governor has proposed directing $50 million to communities that issue new building permits - without any conditions on whether these new homes are affordable or located near transit. We oppose this incentive if it does not incorporate smart growth and affordable housing strategies.
• The Governor's proposed Outside Section 22 (Budgetary Fund Consolidations) would take what are currently dedicated funds and send them instead to the general fund, including numerous funds that were created by the legislature specifically to ensure that those programs would be adequately funded:
  

  Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
  Solid Waste Disposal
  Environmental Law Enforcement
  Public Access
  Environmental Challenge
  Toxics Use Reduction
  Environmental Permitting and Compliance Assurance
  Safe Drinking Water
  Underground Storage Tank and Petroleum Product Cleanup
  Watershed Management
  Dairy Equalization
  Harbors and Inland Waters Maintenance
  Clean Environment
  Marine Fisheries
  Inland Fisheries and Game
  State Recreation Areas
  

  This is a radical proposal, undermining years of legislative intent. If this comes to pass, we cannot be sure that programs supported by the dedicated funds will be sufficiently supported through General Fund appropriations. Further, if the legislature approves expansion of the revenue streams that contribute to these funds (e.g., the permit fees that go into the Environmental Challenge Fund), there is no way to know that the increase in revenues will translate to increased funding for those same programs. House 1 already proposes decreasing the amount of retained revenues from camping and park entrance fees to be used for park maintenance (line item 2900-1100). In the past, business groups and parks users have been willing to pay increased fees because they knew the funds would be set aside for those purposes. We cannot expect these same groups to pay more when they do not know where the funds will end up.

• Several line items and programs previously administered by the Dept of Revenue (line items 1232-0100, 0200, 0300) and Public Safety (line item 8324-1101) ensure inspections of underground and above-ground storage tanks, work that is currently carried out by local fire departments. We urge you to look closely at this proposal, as it could add many hours of work to DEP's already heavy load.
• Line item 2250-2001, which pays for administration of the State Revolving Funds for clean water and safe drinking water, has been eliminated in House 1. This eliminated the Department of Environmental Protection's program to distribute state and matching federal funds to municipalities. We may be at risk of losing federal funds for the program if we cannot administer it properly. Certainly this proposal runs counter to the Governor's own Fix it First philosophy wherever it impedes municipalities' efforts to fix and improve existing water infrastructure.
• The Governor has zeroed out the Riverways Program, and discontinued the Watershed Initiative, both of which leveraged local energy and private funding for environmental improvements. Massachusetts should place a priority not only on public-private for-profit partnerships, but the valuable public-private nonprofit partnerships represented by such programs.

The impacts of past budget cuts are visible all around the Commonwealth - in the parks, the cities, the rivers, and the harbors.