NYS budget likely to impact agriculture and the environment

On Thursday, April 1, New York state is scheduled to adopt a state budget. While state politics and policies are not entirely germane to the ruminations of a county legislator, in recent weeks several conversations with local residents have indicated that the state budget’s potential impact on our farmlands, environment and parks is of concern.

From the possible closure of Rudd Pond in North East and partial closure of the new Walkway Over the Hudson to reductions in farmland protection and open space, the governor’s proposed budget has many environmental ramifications.

u      u      u

At the heart of the matter are reductions to the state’s Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), which was created during the last recession in 1993 when environmental funding was scarce. The EPF’s function is to maintain the importance of environmental funding even in tough times, by funding a myriad of local environmental concerns through grants. These include watershed protection, conservation, invasive species eradication, landfill closures, building recycling facilities, land acquisition and farmland protection.

Considering Dutchess County’s current solid waste plights, imagine what EPF dollars could mean for upgrades to recycling, or even the RRA waste-to-energy plant in today’s even tougher economy.

The EPF is traditionally funded from a percentage of real estate transfer taxes — for which the state Legislature annually determines the percentage rate. While last year’s state Legislature considered adding uncollected bottle deposits on soda, beer and water to the EPF, in the end those funds were diverted to the state’s general fund.

In recent years, Albany leaders have also been known to “off-load†or take money from the EPF for related but non-environmental matters ordinarily paid for from the general fund. These include paying the state taxes on public lands and projects at state parks. This year, Gov. Paterson is holding hostage some parks, threatening to close them unless the Legislature funds operations through an additional EPF withdrawal of $5 million.

Further, Paterson’s 2010 budget depletes the EPF by one-third — from $220 million in 2009 to $143 million in 2010. This reduction is in addition to the approximate $500 million the EPF is already owed for prior years’ non-environmental “off-loads.â€

u      u      u

Consider also the effects of under-funding the EPF on farmland protection:

Under federal agriculture and markets law, the EPF may cover up to 50 percent of the cost for counties to develop agricultural and farmland protection plans to maintain agricultural industry economic viability. The EPF may also be used to cover up to 75 percentage of the cost to purchase development rights of farms that lessen the tax burden of farmers while also providing lasting open space to the community.

The 2009 state budget allocated $22.054 million to farmland protection. This year Paterson proposes $10.5 million. It is predicted that this will result in inadequate funds, leading to the rejection of 94 percent of currently pending farmland protection projects.

Just this week 25 members from county governments from across New York drew together to decry the predicted cuts to the EPF. Perhaps then funding issues of the EPF is properly a county concern after all?

 Michael Kelsey represents the towns of Amenia, Washington, Stanford, Pleasant Valley and the village of Millbrook in the Dutchess County Legislature. Write him at KelseyESQ@yahoo.com.