Legislative committee to decide on Yale Farm this week

A hearing on a high-profile proposed bill went to public hearing Monday. The state Legislature’s Environment Committee is expected to vote on raised Bill No. 6345 on March 21.

The bill is simple. It prohibits the diversion of more than 50,000 gallons of water daily for non-municipal recreational uses in the federally designated Highlands Region. It would take effect immediately, and would put an end to the proposed Yale Farm Golf Club (YFGC) project.

The  Highlands  encompasses 2,000,000 miles of land in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.

Over the past several years, the golf course and recreational facility has acquired three of the four special permits it needs from North Canaan and Norfolk, where the 780-acre Yale Farm is located.

The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a tentative approval in January for water diversion and water quality permits, which are required because the project is expected to use more than 50,000 gallons of water daily during the golf season.

A public hearing on that process is scheduled to begin in May.

But if Bill No. 6345 passes, there will be no point in the DEP or the Army Corps of Engineers completing the work they have already begun.

So far, government agencies and local agencies, including many that are staffed by volunteers, have invested six years into studies, meetings and hearings on the proposed project. And many feel that their efforts will have been wasted if this bill is passed, and puts an abrupt end to discussion of the golf course.

Rep. Roberta Willis (D-64) provided faxed copies of testimony to The Journal immediately following the hearing on March 16.

It was Willis who originally introduced an amendment to a different statute that would have had the same outcome. The bill currently under consideration was written by the Environment Committee.

Strong opinions on both sides

The testimony before the Legislature echoed the tone of local public hearings on the project.

Testimony had been contradictory here, as it was in Hartford on Monday. Some said the golf course would have a disastrous impact on headwaters and everything downstream. Others said the golf course and current practices of management would serve to protect water quality and quantity.

In its January determination, the DEP took note of those revised management practices and is requiring unprecedented and strict monitoring practices. Yale Farm Golf Club would have to submit annual reports that include not only daily monitoring of water use and supply, but evidence that monitoring devices are regularly calibrated. Oversight would be provided by a third party hired by the developer.

Safer than farm runoff

Torrington attorney Peter Herbst, who represents the Yale Farm group, said in his testimony that a noted scientist hired by the town of Norfolk testified  in favor of the proposed practices — especially in light of current uninhibited runoff from a small herd of cows at the farm.

It would also be a better use of the land than  a housing project, he said, which would allow numerous wells and septic systems without special permitting by the town.

Slade Mead, who owns the Yale Farm property with his brothers, Robert and Kirk, told The Journal recently that they would seek to develop housing lots there, should the golf course project not proceed. Mead lives in Arizona but flew in for the hearing on Monday.

On Monday, Herbst told the Environment Committee that he believes the proposed legislation is not good public policy. He suggested it was created specifically to stop the project and “creates a standard that is arbitrary and has no rational basis because it would result in terminating a project that protects water quality and both ground and surface flows.�

The first selectmen in North Canaan and Norfolk sent letters, to be submitted into the public hearing record, reiterating comments in a letter previously sent to Gov. M. Jodi Rell. They urged the governor to veto the bill if it makes it to her desk, and to give the town, state and federal agencies a chance to finish the work they started.

They have taken the proposed bill as a slap in the face after the years of work they have done to make a proper determination on the project. Both North Canaan First Selectman Douglas Humes and Norfolk First Selectman Susan Dyer have remained publicly neutral on the project, but they both said it is not right to have the rug pulled out from under them in this ongoing process.

Adding fine points to the bill

Elaine LaBella testified in Hartford on behalf of the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) and the Highlands Coalition. She is land protection director at HVA, which chairs Connecticut’s Highlands Coalition.

LaBella said both organizations support the proposed legislation. But she suggested the bill be rewritten so that proposed uses that apply under the bill would be considered on an individual basis.

“Not all recreational developments are located where water availability might be constrained, and their permits could be granted based on individual water characteristics and attributes,� LaBella said. “We would be available to work with the committee to draft suitable language.�

Margaret Miner, executive director of Rivers Alliance of Connecticut, also testified in support of the bill. She noted, as LaBella did, that the four-state Highlands Region supplies drinking water to more than 15 million people. She added that, according to the Highlands Coalition, the 700,000 Highlands acres in the western part of Connecticut are losing farmland and open space at twice the rate of development elsewhere in the state.

The fate of a frog

She suggested her own changes to the bill, calling for stronger wording about potential impacts. She asked that the bill be worded so it applies to projects where the water source is headwaters in the highland region. She also specified that it should limit large uses to only those projects essential to public health and safety. Miner said the water-use restriction should apply to municipal uses as well.

“It makes no difference to the fate of a frog whether you are a wealthy landowner or a member of the town road crew,� Miner testified.

She also suggested that the golf course has submitted an incomplete application that does not include the water needs of the potential housing project there. A moderate number of high-end homes was included in the original application. That part of the plan was removed on the second Yale Farm application.

At the time, some members of the public cried foul, saying the housing development would not get consideration. Both the applicant’s representatives and local commissioners assured them that would not be the case.  

The Yale Farm developers said the golf course was, by far, its priority, and it would sacrifice some or all potential homesites if necessary. Planning and Zoning and Inland Wetlands commission members said the housing component would also need special permitting and would be subjected to scrutiny later on.

Christopher Phelps, program director for Environment Connecticut, testified in support of the bill, and reiterated one of the revisions suggested by the Rivers Alliance.

Main concern: the environment

Willis told The Journal she supported the bill because of her commitment to environmental issues. She has served on the Environment Committee for all of her nine years in state office.

She was criticized by Humes and Dyer for not consulting with them about the bill, which would have a substantial impact on their towns. And they both  noted that she is not the state representative for either of their towns.

Willis told The Journal the timing was coincidental; that she has long worked toward protecting sensitive ecosystems throughout the region. She originally introduced Bill No. 5472, which would have amended an existing statute to include essentially the same wording as Bill No. 6345. The Environment Committee, instead, proposed Bill No. 6345 as an alternative.

The Environment Committee is required to complete its work for the session by March 20.