What Paterson's Deficit Proposals Mean For The Adirondacks
by Editorial Staff
Late last week Governor David Paterson announced a two-year, $5.0 billion deficit reduction plan that he claims would "eliminate the State’s current-year budget gap without raising taxes, as well as institute major structural reforms." The plan includes a second raid on the state's Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), which the Governor swept clean of $50 million at the end of 2008, and a raid on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative's (RGGI) carbon allowance auction proceeds. Those funds, amounting to about $90 million, had been slated for energy conservation and clean energy development.
"Energy conservation and clean energy development," says Adirondack Council spokesman John Sheehan, "are two areas where the investment would have provided both real savings for the taxpayer and clear benefits to the environment and public health." None of the money collected from the carbon auctions since the New York began participating in January has been spent on energy programs according to Sheehan, who added that "this may be the first time in history that a dedicated fund was actually raided for another purpose before one cent of it was spent on its intended purpose."
The proposed $10 million dollar raid on the EPF is the second within a year. About $500 million has been diverted from the fund for non-environmental purposes since 2003. The EPF is supposed to fund major environmental projects and provide local tax relief for landfill closures, municipal recycling facilities, conservation agreements, and expansion of the state Forest Preserve.
"A month or so ago, we wondered aloud why the Governor wasn't spending the Environmental Protection Fund money that had already been collected since April 1," Sheehan wrote in a recent e-mail to the media, "Now we know why."
The governor's announcement comes just a week after he said he would cut ten percent from the budgets of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The Governor's plan announced late last year to cut state property tax payments to Adirondack municipalities that host state lands was rejected by the State Legislature this spring.
EXCERPT FROM GOVERNOR'S PRESS RELEASE:
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)/EPF Transfers
(2009-10 Savings: $100 million; 2010-11 Savings: $0 million)
This proposal would transfer $90 million in RGGI proceeds and $10 million from the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) to the General Fund. It is currently expected that RGGI proceeds through the end of 2009-10 will total $220 million, allowing the state to meet its $112 million commitment to the recently passed Green Jobs legislation, as well as this $90 million General Fund transfer. Additionally, it is fully expected that after implementation of the DRP, the State would still be able to meet its original 2009-10 EPF cash spending plan of $180 million, which is equal to record 2008-09 levels.
13 Comments:
I spoke with Sheehan last week, and the thing I find most troubling is that Paterson is not proposing to cut state aid to enviro groups, rather he's straight up taking money from the Greenhouse Gas Initiative... This isn't a reduction in state aid like the DEC and APA are experiencing, this is nothing short of political thievery...
Chris,
Which "enviro groups" get state aid?
Yeah that was worded incorrectly, I merely meant to say that this particular money grab is not a mid-year reduction to a state environmental agency...
Gottcha -
I agree. I guess the law was written so that these thefts could occur?
I can understand the need to cut a little from everywhere, but to plan to wipe these accounts clean in advance and then take ALL the money from the RGGI and EPF before ANY of it is spent, is outrageous.
The state is beyond broke. We can't afford many of these programs. If there is unspent money in a non-essential program than that should be the first to go. Is there any other money in the EPF? I think you are incorrect to state that ALL the money in the EPF has been swept. If you are right then good. If not than any remaining money should be swept out also. I am sorry that the NC and other groups bet that the state would buy more land for the forest preserve but it looks like they lost that bet. The NYS budget has been living a, wall street fueled, dreamworld for too long. I suggest that we also eliminate redundant programs like the APA. All their "functions" can be managed by the EPA and the Army Corps along with other regulatory agencies that already exist to perform these functions. The money in the RGGI may have some downstream advantage that could have a positive impact on the budget so I cannot speak to those cuts, they may be misguided. But if the gov thinks those are non-essential then I would go with his judgment. None of this is pretty but it has to be done. Now is the time.
Wow Paul. So we don't meet our commitments? That's not the way I live my life.
The NC is not a "group" it is people living in New York State, far, I might add, from your Wall Street money, which for all intents and purposes doesn't make it up here at all, except to house inmates from the south.
The idea that the APA should be replaced by the EPA and the Army Corps is frankly laughable. The last thing we need is bigger government telling local communities what to do.
Have you looked at the history of the EPA and Army Corps? They don't exactly have a great track record on the environment, or local development.
Why not just get rid of state governments altogether and let the President do the Governor's job?
Why not let the US military take over for the police?
I meet all my commitments as well. I also am careful not to make commitments that are beyond my means. I was born and raised in the Adirondacks so it isn't "my" Wall Street money, thanks. But NYS has made the mistake of relying on that money to fuel their budget for too many years. Now that it is gone they have to make difficult choices that we all wish we did not have to make. I agree that local control is a better idea as well. I only suggest the redundancy of the EPA and the Army Corp since many folks downstate would not agree that we can regulate ourselves. So yes I would agree to allow the local towns to administer themselves and get rid of many layers like the APA. It only saves a few million but everything counts. Yes, you are also correct that the NC is made up of a bunch of people (often referred to as a group), the majority of whom do not live in the Adirondacks or NY.
Paul obviously does not know what he is talking about. The APA is not redundant and the EPA and Corps have completely different missions and functions. The APA is primarily a land use regulatory agency.
Great response, John. It is so true that lumping together authority over the Adirondacks to the COE and EPA would be a terrible mistake.
These cuts are very concerning and I hope only temporary. I'm sure there is plenty of waste elsewhere in the government and they have no business raiding the environmental funds for their budget.
Actually I do know what I am talking about. For example why is a project involving wetlands within the Adirondack park not regulated by the EPA as it might be in other places? The reason is that this task has been handed off by the federal government to the APA. The EPA has been reviewing the work of the APA over the last year to make sure that they are meeting those guidelines. Look it up, or ask the APA if you don't believe me. Like I said above, fine let the town building and zoning boards manage the work. Apparently anonymus has never applied for a permit with any of these agencies. In many cases within the Adirondack park for a project you may need a permit from the Town, the village, the APA, the DEC, and the Army Corp (for some water related projects) all at the same time. Even if you leave out the last one it sounds like redundancy to me. What you will notice when you work through these agencies is that some just wait for the others to do the work. For example the town will give yo the OK as long as the APA has reviewed the project. They are just pushing the responsibilities off on the other agency. But now it is time to find ways to save money. G
But going back to the original point. The bottom line is the state doesn't have the money and something has to go. If you look in another story on this you will see that the Adirondack Council claims that they could sue the state over this. That is always their answer when they don't get what they want. Go ahead sue, that will cost the state even more money and make the problem worse than it already is. The writing is on the wall, the days of spending money for things like more Forest Preserve land we cannot afford to buy or maintain are over. I think we have to get used to it.
get rid of the apa and you might as well get rid of the blue line altogether.
Now that is not a bad idea FoulHooked!
This is unfortunate, but tough times call for tough sacrifices - I'm glad Paterson is swinging the axe and calling out those who scream without offering up a reasonable alternative source of cuts or revenue.
If these sorts of environmental programs are that important, perhaps hikers, paddlers, etc. can step forward to offer to pay some sort of "use fees." I paid nearly $50 this year for my hunting and fishing license - I don't see why hunters and fisherman are the only ones who explicitly pay for their use of the state's natural resources.
Post a Comment