This Issues Paper summarizes many of the environmental challenges that face the commonwealth and its next Governor. It was prepared by the Environmental League of Massachusetts, members of the Massachusetts Environmental Collaborative, and many of our partner organizations in the environmental advocacy community. We prepared this paper in the hope of elevating environmental issues to a more prominent place in the debate that will lead up to the November elections. While the list of issues is extensive, it is not comprehensive. Some important issue areas, such as solid waste management and recycling, are not included. Others, for example transportation and transit, are given only brief treatment. We expect to address these issues in greater detail in the months ahead.

Establishing and implementing policies that take into account the needs of both the natural environment and citizens is one of government's greatest challenges. How can we be sure that land is preserved for future generations? Will there be enough fresh water to sustain growing towns? What energy strategies can we put in place that will not sacrifice clean air? Can the state parks serve their many users properly?

Massachusetts' natural environment - places like the Berkshires, Cape Cod, Buzzards Bay, Cape Ann, the Connecticut River valley - is a treasure held in trust by the people's agents. The health and wellbeing of Massachusetts' citizens - rural and city dwellers, and those in the suburbs - is a right upheld by the rules and regulations promulgated by the legislature and administrative agencies. We have made great progress in Massachusetts over the past three decades, but we still have far to go. Our members - hundreds of thousands of households across the Commonwealth - stand ready to lend their enthusiasm, expertise, labor, and voices to promoting solutions to the next generation of environmental issues. It is our fervent hope that our next Governor will join us enthusiastically in this endeavor.

If you have questions or comments about this Issues Paper, please send them to Rani Corey at rcorey@EnvironmentalLeague.org or to Environmental League of Massachusetts, 14 Beacon Street, Suite 714, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.

I. Water Resources and Wetlands

In the more than thirty years since Massachusetts passed the first wetlands protection law in the country, and the subsequent passage of the federal Clean Water Act, Massachusetts has made great progress in slowing wetland loss and decreasing pollution from construction runoff, sewage treatment plants, factories, and other point sources. However, several important problems remain: inadequate protection of wildlife and fisheries habitat, contaminated stormwater, water shortages, lagging compliance with environmental rules and regulations, and a lack of comprehensive monitoring to determine water quality.

A. Massachusetts' waters are still dumping grounds. Water bodies in Massachusetts are polluted by stormwater runoff, point source discharges from industrial facilities and wastewater treatment plants, and combined sewer/stormwater overflows. Rainwater flowing from parking lots, for example, carries motor oil, heavy metals, animal waste, and all manner of trash via storm drains to the nearest water body. In addition, combined sewer/stormwater systems in our older cities and towns discharge human waste to streams and the coast during heavy rainstorms. This stormwater pollution is exacerbated by crumbling municipal drainage and sewer systems, and illicit connections to storm drains. And the more we test, the more we find out that our freshwater and ocean beaches are contaminated with potentially harmful bacteria.

Massachusetts must make a commitment to cleaning up our waters. This means:

• monitoring and taking action to fix ancient infrastructure and failing septic systems;
• removing illicit connections, separating combined sewer and stormwater systems wherever possible, and adequately treating all wastewater before it enters waterways;
• making sure that existing rules are enforced at all levels of government.

For more information: Merrimack River Watershed Council, Salem Sound 2000, Saugus River Watershed Council, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay.

B. Competing demands for water are drying up our rivers and streams.
Rivers in eastern Massachusetts are drying up. Like the canary in the coal mine, the rivers are an early warning of troubles to come. This is because they depend on the same groundwater for flow that many of our cities and towns depend upon for drinking water supplies. Massachusetts' development - both residential and commercial - must take natural limits on growth, like water supply, into account.

• The most immediate need is for the Department of Environmental Management to determine available water resources, first in watersheds that have already been identified as "stressed," then for at-risk areas, where rapid growth has occurred.
• Sustainable water resource management - enforcing and integrating new and existing limits on water supplies, stormwater treatment and infiltration, and wastewater reclamation - must take a front seat for the Department of Environmental Protection.
• Over the long term, watershed-level water supply planning should provide guidance for planning at the municipal level, incorporating zoning and growth limits that reflect the finite supplies of fresh water.

For more information: Charles River Watershed Association, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Jones River Watershed Association, Saugus River Watershed Council

C. Municipal water infrastructure is crumbling.
Years of neglect of existing water and sewer pipes has resulted in contaminated drinking water supplies, depleted groundwater stores, and overwhelmed treatment plants. Massachusetts should commit to repairing leaking pipes, and providing municipalities with the resources they need to identify and address environmental and public health threats posed by 50- to 100-year-old pipes.

• The first step toward solving this problem is to educate municipalities about the importance of full system assessments and leak detection.
• The state should increase investment in the State Revolving Loan fund, restoring zero percent financing for municipal loans to address problems.
• Once the infrastructure is upgraded, ongoing maintenance, on par with highway maintenance, must be undertaken. This will ensure clean water to households and avoid the costly repairs that result from neglect.

For more information: Charles River Watershed Association, Salem Sound 2000

D. Wildlife and fish habitat is dwindling.

Development sited too close to wetlands and streams, unregulated activities, underfunded programs, and insufficient monitoring and enforcement are resulting in destruction and degradation of wetlands and water bodies. These lead in turn to loss of habitat and a decline in wildlife populations and biodiversity. The state must immediately restore the Department of Environmental Protection's Wetlands Protection Program by:

• increasing scientific staffing;
• providing guidance materials and direct support for the local conservation commissions across the state charged with administering the state wetlands law;
• restoring wetlands enforcement as a priority; and
• compiling permit and enforcement information and making it accessible online.

The state's own actions must also respect wetlands and other habitat and enhance the public's appreciation of and sense of stewardship for these important resources.

For more information: Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions

E. Lack of data is hindering progress.
We cannot tell what steps to take if we do not know where we are. Massachusetts has a wholly inadequate water quality monitoring program, one that provides only a fraction of the information needed to assess progress in cleaning up our rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds, and allow us to chart new directions. While watershed associations have stepped in to help government find pollution sources and measure improvements in water quality, not all water bodies are included in that informal network. This kind of information is critical for implementing requirements under the federal Clean Water Act to develop Total Maximum Daily Load estimates for water bodies that do not currently meet water quality standards.

• Massachusetts's next governor should declare the goal of testing the major waters of the Commonwealth every two years, providing resources to local groups where they exist, and sending agency staff into the field where they do not.
• "At-risk" stretches of the state's 27 watersheds should be monitored using real-time, in situ monitors, beginning in 2005.
• The state should fund on-site staffing to direct monitoring programs in each watershed, moving existing state-employed "Team Leaders" into the field where watershed groups are not already organized.

For more information: Nashua River Watershed Association, Organization for the Assabet River, Saugus River Watershed Council

II. Land Use and Conservation

Massachusetts' landscape boasts some of the most spectacular natural resources in New England. Some may believe that it is too expensive to practice smart growth and conserve open space. But in reality our lives and livelihoods are so intricately linked to the commonwealth's natural resources that maintaining a healthy landscape is vital to protecting our quality of life and economic well being. Open space conservation directly affects our health and that of the environment by providing clean drinking water, breathable air, and habitat for native species and natural communities. Parks, recreational open space and well-planned development stimulate business and add vitality to communities. In rural areas, protecting farmland and wood lots safeguards the New England tradition of living close to the land and ensures stability for rural economies and communities. From the Berkshire Mountains to the Cape Cod Seashore, open space attracts tourism dollars and supports outdoor recreation. Other states have outpaced Massachusetts in establishing policies to combine sustainable development and a healthy environment. We look to our next governor for forward-thinking leadership that will bring sustainable, smart growth to Massachusetts.

A. Loss of open space is a continuing problem Massachusetts.
Of Massachusetts' 5.2 million acres of land, 3 million is undeveloped and unprotected - and it is being lost to development at an unprecedented and accelerating rate (Massachusetts Audubon Society has estimated that 44 acres of land are lost every day). Conservation organizations, sportsmen's and recreational groups, watershed associations, and government agencies have identified more than half of this undeveloped land as needing protection to ensure that the Commonwealth's critical natural resource base is not further degraded.

• The next governor should partner with nonprofit land and water organizations to identify and prioritize lands most threatened by development and most in need of protection;
• Massachusetts must set aside and protect adequate open space to benefit all citizens, both in cities and towns and in rural areas;
• The state should establish and implement additional tax incentives and policies that enable landowners to donate land, or maintain it as open space, forest, or agricultural land.

For more information: Berkshire Natural Resources Council, Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition

B. Current policies - and lack of policies - for growth and development in Massachusetts has led to sprawl.
As we rapidly lose open space, farmland, and community character, we are facing more traffic congestion and increasing demands on municipal services. Future growth in Massachusetts must occur in a more sustainable way, to protect our greenspaces, address the housing needs of our citizens, and conserve our water and biodiversity. Growth in Massachusetts will not be truly sustainable without strong gubernatorial leadership. The next administration must develop a statewide vision, and at least five key issue areas must be addressed:

• overhauling our antiquated zoning legislation to sharply restrict "grandfathering" and allow and encourage cities and towns to truly chart their future courses;
• adopting development models that ensure abundant and healthy affordable housing throughout the commonwealth that includes access to public transit options, but that do not sacrifice environmental protections;
• setting out a vision for the state's future growth - and then supporting planning at the state, regional and local level consistent with that vision;
• establishing sustainable water resource management planning at the local and regional level; and
• investing in and encouraging growth in already-established cities and towns to benefit both current residents and newcomers.

Finally, the state's own actions and spending must consistently respect its sustainable growth goals.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Chapter of the American Planning Association

C. Local parks are disappearing, one by one.
When the Commonwealth and municipalities acquire conservation and recreation land for public benefit, they become responsible for protecting and managing that land according to those purposes. In 1972, voters overwhelmingly passed Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution to prevent public conservation and recreation land from unchecked transfer to other uses. Unfortunately, budget shortfalls and short-term political considerations create strong pressure on local landholding agencies to convert this land to other uses, which are sometimes environmentally unsound - and which always result in loss of open space.

Compounding the problem, "Article 97" land transfer bills are routinely enacted by the Legislature without debate or examination, and land that was once parkland is suddenly a parking lot or a municipal building.

For more information: Charles River Watershed Association, Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions, The Trustees Of Reservations

D. The state and metropolitan park systems are suffering from neglect.

Visitor services, routine maintenance, infrastructure repair, and natural resource management have suffered for years due to lack of funding and inadequate staffing. For the past several years, the Department of Environmental Management, faced with budget shortfalls and political pressures, has turned to private development and commercial uses in our forests and parks to raise funds. This trend in turn has raised serious concerns among environmentalists and parks "friends" groups that stewardship of public lands has taken a back seat to generating funds. Our forests and parks are losing ground despite the fact that they provide public recreational opportunities to people who cannot afford private ones. The amount of money needed to make our parks first-rate is quite modest, and in fact the plans are in place, but the funds are not.

It is time the Commonwealth renews its commitment to our precious public parks by:

• making protection of our unique natural and cultural resources an explicit objective of land acquisition and management;
• planning for and providing recreational opportunities that are compatible with conservation goals;
• delivering the staffing and funding resources necessary for responsible stewardship, including both ongoing maintenance and diligent enforcement of environmental laws; and
• providing meaningful opportunities for citizens to participate in setting priorities and management goals for our forests and parks.

For more information: Appalachian Mountain Club, Environmental League of Massachusetts

III. Environmental Justice and Health

Last January, a Northeastern University professor examined state data to identify trends in the siting of toxic waste disposal facilities, incinerators, landfills, trash transfer stations, power plants, and polluting industrial facilities in Massachusetts. His report provides compelling evidence that inequities in the distribution of polluting sites and facilities are placing lower-income populations and people of color at substantially greater risk of exposure to environmental health hazards - from three to nine times the general population's risk. These findings only underscore what some communities have known all along: that poorer areas and communities of color are bearing the brunt of Massachusetts' pollution problems.

It is not only a problem in the cities. Many non-urban communities are home to a major industrial facility, adjacent to a significant hazardous waste site, or host a regional landfill or incinerator. Residents are looking for an end to routine exposures to hazardous chemicals where they live, work, and play; more equitable transit service; and building construction that takes environmental health concerns into account. Reducing air pollution will protect the most vulnerable - children, the elderly, and people with respiratory ailments - while also protecting the environment.

A. Overburdened communities must receive greater environmental protections, and greater control over their own environmental futures.

• We can keep existing problems from becoming worse by establishing a state environmental justice designation program that identifies overburdened communities, gives those communities additional protections against new polluters, and provides resources to address existing pollution sources and encourage cleaner development based on community input.
• Enforcement of existing laws, funding for environmental programs, and priority cleanup of existing hazards must be afforded these communities.

For more information: Alternatives for Community and Environment, Boston Greenspace Alliance, Environmental League of Massachusetts

B. Transit injustices perpetuate bad air in city neighborhoods.
The MBTA has been lax in its commitments to clean up its diesel buses, subjecting residents in the Metro Boston area to clouds of dangerous particulates and air pollutants. Residents near the T's major bus depots in Roxbury and other cities are those who are most affected. Other transit justice issues include equity in facilities and service, and public input to decisionmaking.

• The MBTA must immediately comply with provisions set out in a 2000 Consent Order requiring the T to retrofit any diesel buses not being replaced by clean-fuel buses with particulate removal technology;
• The MBTA should immediately invite riders' representatives to join the MBTA Board of Directors;
• The MBTA should purchase 200 additional clean-fuel buses to expand the system and provide adequate service and frequency; and
• The MBTA must develop a public planning process for determining the siting of bus garages, especially siting of clean-fuel garages to provide service to regions that suffer most from poor air quality and health effects.

For more information: Alternatives for Community and Environment, T Riders Union

C. Massachusetts' public health agenda all but ignores environmental health.
Environmental pollution has been linked to high asthma rates, lupus, cancer, and other health problems. The health effects of pollution are seen most acutely in areas that host hazardous waste sites, industrial facilities, bus depots, incinerators, and dirty power plants.

It is not enough for facilities hoping to locate in these neighborhoods to meet statewide standards. The cumulative local and regional health impacts of many polluting land uses or facilities must be taken into account during siting reviews.

• Environmental and public health officials must push forward with methods of assessing cumulative impacts, putting them to work to protect citizens' health.
• Expanded "healthy homes" and "healthy schools" initiatives and lead abatement programs should be top priorities.
• The Commonwealth should establish a new Office of Environmental Health to investigate and deal directly with environmental health threats.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts

D. Public health and safety are threatened by continued overuse of toxic chemicals.
Massachusetts's toxic chemical use reporting requirements (under the Toxics Use Reduction Act) and the national toxic release inventory allow local governments, the state, and the public to determine where chemicals are being stored, used, and released. The requirements to tally up and report levels of use and discharges provide incentives to companies to reassess the amount and types of chemicals they use, perhaps prompting them to reduce volumes or choose less hazardous options. Further, local awareness of this information is important for emergency planning.

• Toxics reporting requirements, and local access to information about chemical use, including availability on the Internet, must be upheld in the face of challenges from industry.
• The state must focus more of its attention on firms and industries that continue to use large amounts of toxics and establish performance standards that will lead to reductions in use.
• The state must make the most highly toxic substances, and those that accumulate in fish, animals, and people, the highest priorities for action and use reduction.
• The state should provide greater incentives to industry to choose nontoxic alternatives and to reformulate products and processes to drastically reduce toxic chemical use and discharges.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts, MassPIRG

E. Pesticide use continues while alternatives are ignored.
Alternatives to chemical pesticides are available, but Massachusetts has not taken full advantage of them - needlessly exposing citizens when spraying road and rail rights-of-way, in schoolyards, and at public parks, while citizens continue to apply excessive amounts to farmland and lawns.

• The Fiscal Year 2002 budget eliminated funding for the modest but effective integrated pest management program at the Department of Food and Agriculture. Investment in Integrated Pest Management must be a priority in the commonwealth, providing the Department of Food and Agriculture with the resources needed to research and test alternatives, then educate users.
• In Massachusetts, pesticides and fertilizers are exempt from the state sales tax. By keeping pesticides cheaper than alternatives, we encourage their use. The sales tax exemption on pesticides should be lifted - and the resulting $1million in new revenue should be directed to promoting alternative pest control.
• With a commitment from the next governor, Massachusetts can become a model for other states working to decrease use of toxic pesticides, and to ban pesticide use along rights-of-way, on school property, and in public parks.

For more information: Hilltown Anti-Herbicide Coalition

IV. Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Energy Security

By turning to cleaner energy and transportation sources, we can improve air quality, reduce Massachusetts' emissions that contribute to climate change, and help strengthen our national security. Massachusetts is in a position to take advantage of locally developed technology, a relatively compact infrastructure, and motivated citizens to step forward as a model for the country in this arena. The primary answer to the United States' over-dependence on foreign oil must be to develop more transit options and to produce, buy, and drive more fuel-efficient cars; and encourage use of renewable energy sources. While Massachusetts has made great strides in meeting federal air quality standards, more work remains.

A. Dirty power plants and other air pollution sources are hazardous to our health.
Reducing air pollution will protect the most vulnerable - children, the elderly, and people with respiratory ailments - while also protecting the environment. We must build upon the progress that is being made with our first-in-the-nation rules limiting carbon, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides emissions from power plants. Now, the Department of Environmental Protection must firmly and forcefully implement the final power plant clean-up regulations. The next governor must ensure that:

• the Emission Control Plans submitted by each plant owner meet or exceed expectations;
• DEP sets forth an effective plan for monitoring and reducing mercury emissions from the coal-fired plants (DEP has until December 2002 to evaluate control technology options and until June 2003 to propose emission standards by June 2003); and
• Make sure that DEP carries through on regulations to reduce carbon emissions that are due by fall 2002.

Finally, emission requirements for diesel-powered distributed generators must be put in place, and security around nuclear power plants must be increased.

For more information: Appalachian Mountain Club, Clean Water Action, MassPIRG

B. Massachusetts lags behind on energy efficiency and use of renewable and alternative energy sources.
New renewable energy sources are critical to addressing our state's contributions to air pollution, global climate change and dependence on dirty domestic coal and imported oil and natural gas. Massachusetts' 1997 utility restructuring law included a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that requires all power generators to ensure that four percent of the electricity they sell in Massachusetts comes from new renewable energy sources by 2009. The law requires one percent annual increases of renewable generation thereafter until the state Division of Energy Resources (DOER) ends the requirement. If DOER leaves the 1 percent requirement in place, 15 percent of the state's power would come from new renewable energy sources by 2020.

We look to the next governor to:

• issue strong implementing regulations to maximize development of renewable energy sources in Massachusetts;
• direct state agencies (and state buildings) to buy a minimum of 10 percent of their power from new renewables by 2005 and 20 percent by 2010 - matching a pledge made by New York Governor George Pataki;
• revisit the two funding methods currently in place, and update the fees: the renewable energy fund should be extended at its 2000 level of 1.25 mill/kWh, and the energy efficiency fund should be increased to 3.3 mill/kWh; and
• require that the state establish new energy efficiency standards modeled after the RPS, to achieve greater energy efficiency gains from industrial equipment, home appliances, heating and cooling systems, outdoor lighting, and other high energy users.

Over the long term, DOER should require power generators to acquire annual increases of 1% in new renewables from 2010 to 2015 and pledge to seek a doubling in the annual increase of new renewables, from 1 percent to 2 percent each year from 2016 to 2020, thus getting Massachusetts to 20 percent renewables by 2020.

For more information: MassPIRG, Union of Concerned Scientists

C. Massachusetts has limited low- and zero-pollution transportation options.
Emissions from automobile, bus, and truck tailpipes contribute to air pollution and climate change. Gasoline consumption decreases our national security by increasing our state's dependence on imported oil. Lack of accessible public transportation, especially subway, light rail, and alternative-fuel buses, makes these problems even worse - wasting gas and increasing emissions as cars, trucks, and buses sit in traffic.

• The next governor should re-confirm Governor Swift's commitment to adopt and implement the California zero- and low-emission vehicle requirements that will put tens of thousands of cleaner vehicles on our roads (and provide an economic boost to our car dealers).
• The following steps should be undertaken immediately: 1) establish state initiatives to help communities replace dirty diesel school buses with healthier, cleaner alternative buses; 2) provide tax incentives for consumers to purchase cleaner and more fuel efficient cars, vans and trucks; and 3) encourage the state and major businesses to green their vehicle fleets.
• The next Governor should commit to expanded public transportation options, including restoring light rail to Washington Street in Boston, adding new light rail lines elsewhere, demanding cleaner locomotives (or electrification) of the commuter rail lines, and implementation of the North Station to South Station Rail Link.
• Over the long term, Massachusetts must take the lead in replacing gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles with significantly cleaner, battery electric/combustion hybrid and fuel cell vehicles as they become available to the mass market.

For more information: MassPIRG, Union of Concerned Scientists

D. Delays in reducing climate change emissions will hurt Massachusetts.
A new study commissioned by Congress and authored by scientists at the University of New Hampshire projects that Boston's temperatures will warm between 6 degrees Fahrenheit (making Boston's normal climate akin to today's Richmond, VA) and 10 degrees (akin to today's Atlanta, GA). The 1990s were the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years, with 1998 the warmest year on record and 2001 projected to be the second warmest. Warmer temperatures in Massachusetts will mean further erosion and flooding in our coastal communities and low-lying neighborhoods, loss of native species like sugar maples, destruction of property, prolonged droughts, and extreme weather. Every New England governor and Eastern Canadian premier in August 2001 signed a regional Climate Action Plan which includes measures to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy and decrease emissions from transportation. It also sets the groundwork for exploring a regional system of emissions-trading credits for greenhouse gases, inventorying climate gas emissions, and implementing emission reductions from state facilities. These last targets for emissions reductions should be strengthened, and we look to the next governor to take a leadership role in that effort. Immediate, proactive steps must be taken to prevent the harmful impacts of rising global temperatures on the people of Massachusetts and our environment:

• The next governor should develop a comprehensive Climate Action Plan that helps businesses and residents to reduce their emissions of climate change gases to levels that exceed the Kyoto protocol targets.
• The plan should include reducing carbon dioxide emissions from our dirtiest power plants, enacting tax incentives to buy cleaner and more efficient cars and trucks, producing 20 percent of our state's energy from renewable energy sources by 2020, and doubling energy efficiency of our homes, buildings, and industry, with a particular focus on energy efficiency in state buildings.

For more information: Clean Water Action, MassPIRG, Union of Concerned Scientists

V. Compliance with and Enforcement of Existing Laws

We depend on Massachusetts' environmental laws - our Clean Air Act, Toxic Use Reduction Act, Water Management Act, Clean Water Act, Wetlands Protection Act - for cleaner air, fewer toxics, water supply protection, and cleaner rivers. Massachusetts has been in the forefront of environmental protection for many years with these laws, and yet every year they come under attack, or suffer from lax enforcement. Power plants seek "grandfathering," exempting them from new air emissions rules. Chemical manufacturers propose abolition of reporting requirements. And trends in enforcement data show that the state does not vigorously enforce existing rules, whether because of lack of resources or lack of will.

A. Massachusetts lacks strategic enforcement of existing laws.
Unless our environmental laws are aggressively enforced, our natural resources become polluted, human health is put at risk, wildlife is threatened, and our overall quality of life is diminished. Massachusetts' economy is also threatened: many companies in the Commonwealth provide professional services, conduct research and development, and produce technologies designed to help others comply with environmental laws. If compliance is perceived as optional because of poor enforcement, efforts to stay within the law decline. If firms that comply with their legal responsibilities are put at a disadvantage by the few that do not, then market competition suffers. In the end, Massachusetts' strong statutory framework is meaningless without effective enforcement.

• The next governor must make a commitment to preserving our right to know who is polluting our air, land, and water, directing the agencies to, within the next three years: 1) establish central enforcement tracking, 2) institute more rigorous training for inspectors, and 3) commit to inspect at least 10 percent of non-major permittees each year.
• Companies that repeatedly or egregiously violate environmental laws (including criminal violations) should be barred from receiving state contracts and grants under Massachusetts' existing debarment statute.
• Information about inspections, inspection results, follow-up on violations, and penalties should be available via the Internet, along with information about chemical use and releases, so that neighbors can monitor nearby facilities' practices.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions

B. Massachusetts' state government is setting a bad example.

State agencies and authorities are some of the largest polluters in Massachusetts. Over the past five years, millions of dollars have been spent to bring the commonwealth into compliance with its own laws - an initiative that only came about with a mandate from the courts. The Commonwealth's own government must set the example, or it loses credibility with the regulated community.

• The next governor should publicly state that environmental laws are not meant to be broken, especially not by government agencies, and commit to reporting annually and in detail on the state of environmental compliance of all the commonwealth's agencies and authorities.
• All Massachusetts agencies must immediately put in place environmental management systems that will lead to consistent compliance with existing laws.

For more information: Charles River Watershed Association

VI. Funding for the Environment

A national study by the Institute for Southern Studies (available at www.SouthernStudies.org) released last year ranked Massachusetts 35th of 50 states in per-capita spending on environmental programs, and 45th in environmental spending as a proportion of the overall budget. At the same time, Massachusetts slipped from 8th in environmental performance in 1994 to 18th in 2000. This ranking among all states is based on indicators like air quality, residents' added cancer risk, and fertilizer and pesticide use.

While funding is only part of the story in gaining environmental improvements, state spending has been inadequate to fully implement existing statutes and maintain existing facilities, let alone to undertake new initiatives.

A. Environmental spending represents only 1% of the overall operating budget.
For this small commitment, Massachusetts residents have access to hundreds of thousands of acres of public land, committed agency staff who do their best to preserve our natural environment, and regulations that provide direction for protecting natural resources. What we don't have is a guarantee that public lands and public facilities will be maintained, adequate staffing to ensure that existing laws are enforced, or easy access to information about water and air quality in the Commonwealth.

The Massachusetts Environmental Collaborative has developed a Green Budget proposal each year for the past four years. (The most recent version is available at www.EnvironmentalLeague.org.) The Green Budget recommendations include specific, line-item recommendations for spending on critical programs and staffing.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts

B. Lack of funding makes new laws empty promises.
Last year, Governor Cellucci signed two bills into law to much fanfare - and then failed to seek funding for their implementation. The Beaches Act requires Boards of Health to monitor water quality at all public beaches in the Commonwealth, an important step in protecting our families' health in the summertime. The Children and Families Protection Act directs schools to alert parents when pesticides will be used on the school grounds or interior. Neither of these bills has been implemented fully, because of lack of funding (Governor Swift vetoed a $425,000 line item in the Fiscal Year 2002 budget that would have helped Boards of Health implement the Beaches Act).

Another promise to turn the Boston Harbor Islands into a national model for state-federal partnerships in National Park management has also become an empty one, with no funding for facility maintenance or remediation of toxic waste dumps on the islands. These laws and initiatives were put in place because they are needed, and worthwhile. The need does not stop with signing the bill, however.

• The next governor must commit to seeking full funding for these and all existing environmental laws and make sure that appropriated funds are spent for their intended purposes.
• New laws and initiatives, as they are announced, must have the funding to allow them to achieve their objectives.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts, Save the Harbor/Save the Bay, Surfrider Foundation (Massachusetts Chapter)

C. Current funding schemes underwrite unsustainable and unjust programs.
State spending on transit, highways, water infrastructure, and school building assistance often subsidizes environmental injustice and promotes environmental degradation. Massachusetts' spending should not create more expensive problems in the future - like poor air quality, flooding due to loss of wetlands, depleted drinking water supplies, or lack of public open space in urban areas.

• The next Governor should reassess the state's spending priorities, and identify areas where what might appear to be short-term gains or savings will prove more costly in the long run.
• State funds should be committed to public transit in proportion to the subsidy the state provides to automobile use by its spending on highways.
• Ultimately, Massachusetts must develop policies that take future impacts, including environmental and public health impacts, into account when developing spending plans.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts

D. Slow capital spending means loss of key forests and farmland, and leaves parks and infrastructure begging.
The Executive Office of Administration and Finance places a limit, or cap, on all Secretariats' capital spending each year. The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs' cap, never generous to begin with, has not kept up with inflation, nor with the many needs of its agencies. One key issue is the competition for capital funds between land purchase and other infrastructure and maintenance needs.

• The Commonwealth's bonding should provide adequate capital funding for all environmental programs. Most immediately, the cap for environmental agencies should be raised from $127 million to $175 million, with $75 million allocated for state and municipal land acquisition.
• Land acquisition funding should be leveraged with matching dollars from municipalities, Community Preservation Act funds, and private philanthropy through land trusts or federal funds. The remaining funds should be directed toward water quality and flow monitoring equipment; dam safety inspections, repairs, and removal where desirable; hazardous waste site clean-up; and state park capital improvements.

For more information: Environmental League of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Audubon Society, The Trustees of the Reservations

E. Massachusetts has not been imaginative in identifying alternative funding methods for land acquisition.
For more than 15 years, state agency open space direct acquisition and municipal grant programs have been financed principally through the use of capital bonds. While this mechanism has been successful, the money it generates has not been adequate to meet the need and implementation is often delayed by unrelated political and fiscal arguments. Political leaders in other states have successfully championed dedicating specific revenue sources for state and municipal acquisition of conservation, passive recreation, and park lands.

For more information: Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition, Sudbury Valley Trustees