Hartford 2013: Some Good Results, Some Not So Good

Great-crested Flycatchers are among the species that might benefit from a decrease in the use of pesticides. Photo by Sandee Harraden.

The 2013 legislative session in Hartford started full of promise, particularly on the issue of pesticide regulations, but ended in early June with mixed results.

Two bills supported by Connecticut Audubon Society passed the General Assembly, and four we supported died. But three bills that we opposed died as well, making for a year of some good and some disappointing outcomes for our agenda.

Our attention was largely focused on legislation to restrict the use of pesticides. Our Connecticut state of the Birds 2013 report, “The Seventh Habitat and the Decline of Our Aerial Insectivores,” released in February, suggested that pesticides might be one of the reasons that the population of aerial insectivores has fallen so dramatically since the 1960s. Aerial insectivores are birds that eat only bugs they catch on the wing.

One pesticide bill we supported passed but three others went nowhere because of an attempt by legislators to compromise with the pro-pesticide lobby (a compromise that also fell flat).

The pesticide bill that passed restricts the use of two mosquito poisons, methoprene and resmethrin, in the coastal area (House Bill 6441). We supported the bill because we believe there are safer alternatives for controlling mosquitoes.

The pesticide bills that failed would have restricted the use of lawn pesticides in parks and schools (Senate Bill 914, HB 981); and would have given local governments the authority to enact stricter pesticide regulations than the existing state regulations (HB 6440).

Early in the session, legislators who support stronger pesticide regulations were convinced that pro-pesticide groups were amassing the votes to overturn an existing ban on lawn pesticides on school grounds. To head that off, a compromise was reached to pass a bill forming a task force to study the pesticide issue. But the task force bill failed as well.

We expect to continue to work in 2014 to pass bills that restrict pesticide use.

Habitat Improvement: Clean Water, Deer, Open Space
We supported an act that authorizes $997.4 million over the next two years for the state’s Clean Water Fund, which provides money for wastewater treatment upgrades, among other things. Cleaning up Long Island Sound and the state’s rivers provides many obvious benefits, including improving habitat for birds, fish and other wildlife.

A bill we suported that would have allowed deer hunting with bow and arrow on Sunday did not make it out of the Environment Committee. Deer are causing significant damage to wildlife habitat by over-browsing the forest understory needed by many birds, including Ovenbird, Eastern Towhee and Ruffed Grouse. We supported the bow hunting bill as a way to reduce the state’s deer herd, thereby giving the forest a chance to re-generate.

We opposed a provision of an education bill that would have earmarked money in the Community Investment Act for a new “healthy foods” initiative for school children. The initiative may have been worthwhile but paying for it with Community Investment Act money was a bad idea.

The Community Investment Act provides funding for open space, historic preservation, affordable housing and brownfields remediation. Skimming $4 million a year from it for the healthy foods initiative would have meant that much less money for those other needs. The education bill passed but without the healthy foods section, which we consider a good outcome..

Finally, we opposed two bills that would have made it easier to build structures such as sea walls on the coast without a permit. Poorly planned sea walls in bad locations can cause significant beach and coastal erosion. We manage two important coastal habitat areas that would certainly be damaged by nearby seawalls, but more broadly we are in favor of protecting natural habitat along the shore.