Spring Break
CT must not spend without environmental info
George Maynard
Issue date: 4/20/09 Section: Commentary
Our state's economy is in shambles and the Connecticut state legislature is looking to help in all the wrong ways. A recent string of bills passed through the legislature's "environmental committee" not only violate federal laws, but also cause unnecessary damage to our natural resources. These bills are short-sighted, special interest projects that should never have made it out of committee, and the legislators who voted for them ought to be ashamed of themselves for putting special interests before the interests of state taxpayers and our environment. Here are a few examples of what our state legislators have been up to recently.
The legislature wants to expedite plans to expand Waterbury-Oxford Airport. This single-runway airfield is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. According to their Web site, the airfield offers a variety of services including private plane fuel-ups, flight instruction, vending machines, hangar rentals and chartered flights. If the state legislature gets its way, this airfield's multi-million-dollar project to offer more taxiways and hangars will be conducted without any oversight by environmental agencies. This violates an existing state law called the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA). CEPA requires that any state agency undertaking a large (multi-million dollar) project with the possibility of adversely affecting the environment must submit to oversight from environmental agencies in an attempt to minimize environmental impacts of such projects.
The state legislature wants to empower the Department of Transportation to do whatever it wants, with no regard for the environmental impacts of such actions in the name of speeding up the spending of federal stimulus money. Expanding the airport without assessing the environmental impacts could lead to more erosion and alter streams in the area. These problems - which could be dealt with in the planning stages if the environmental impacts were assessed - will have to be dealt with at a later date, costing Connecticut taxpayers more money and time than necessary. The legislature and the DOT are ignoring the maxim of "measure twice, cut once." By only considering the speed at which they need to spend money, the DOT will cost taxpayers more money when the entire project has to be redone a few years down the road.
The legislature wants to expedite plans to expand Waterbury-Oxford Airport. This single-runway airfield is owned by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. According to their Web site, the airfield offers a variety of services including private plane fuel-ups, flight instruction, vending machines, hangar rentals and chartered flights. If the state legislature gets its way, this airfield's multi-million-dollar project to offer more taxiways and hangars will be conducted without any oversight by environmental agencies. This violates an existing state law called the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA). CEPA requires that any state agency undertaking a large (multi-million dollar) project with the possibility of adversely affecting the environment must submit to oversight from environmental agencies in an attempt to minimize environmental impacts of such projects.
The state legislature wants to empower the Department of Transportation to do whatever it wants, with no regard for the environmental impacts of such actions in the name of speeding up the spending of federal stimulus money. Expanding the airport without assessing the environmental impacts could lead to more erosion and alter streams in the area. These problems - which could be dealt with in the planning stages if the environmental impacts were assessed - will have to be dealt with at a later date, costing Connecticut taxpayers more money and time than necessary. The legislature and the DOT are ignoring the maxim of "measure twice, cut once." By only considering the speed at which they need to spend money, the DOT will cost taxpayers more money when the entire project has to be redone a few years down the road.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
cjzurcher
chris
posted 4/20/09 @ 9:40 PM EST
Who is George Maynard? What's his bio?
Post a Comment