On Sunday, February 18, the Senate and House budgets were released. While some improvements were made compared to the state budget proposed in December, far-reaching cuts to critical conservation programs still remain. VCN’s Legislative Committee has pulled together the following comments in response to the Virginia House and Senate 2018 – 2020 biennial budget.

Clean Water & Fisheries

In order to meet the pollution reduction goals laid out by the Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan, we must continue to invest in proven-effective programs, including the Agriculture Cost Share (VACS) program and the Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF). The state-determined need for the VACS program is more than $100M annually. While we support the budget’s inclusion of slightly more than the $32.5M recommended by Governor McAuliffe, we emphasize that this falls far short of the need. The need for SLAF is at least $50M per year. Again, while the $20M included in the Senate budget is a marked improvement from the zeroed-out line item last year, it still falls short of the need. We are supportive of the addition of the marine fuel tax piece as a dedicated source of sustainable funding to the VACS program.

Despite the oyster’s increasing prominence, Virginia invests minimal resources in the state’s fishery and makes no monetary investment in ecological restoration, which supports a wide array of ecosystem services. Unfortunately, this lack of investment has resulted in the state missing opportunities to further oyster restoration efforts with federal partners, as well as chances to further improve water quality and support revitalization of other fisheries. While we have urged $3.5M annually for wild oyster replenishment and $500K annually for ecological restoration, the investments for oyster replenishment/restoration proposed in both the House and Senate budgets are a strong step in the right direction.

House Language Amendments:

  • Subcommittee adds $100K in year 1 and $200K in year 2 to fund one additional engineer the first year and two the second year to support on-the-ground project implementation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts — Support.
  • Virginia Natural Resources Leadership Institute — Support.

Land Conservation

Successful land conservation requires action at all levels to protect the Commonwealth’s diverse landscapes. Land conservation is critical in achieving measurable goals on protecting water quality, water supply, climate resiliency, and the Chesapeake Bay.

Virginia has well established land conservation policies that emphasize geographic distribution of money and an increasing prioritization of public access and water quality protection.  Mitigation funding for geographic specific projects to remediate for harmful projects should not be substituted for the Commonwealth’s established land conservation policies and priorities that citizens and communities rely upon.

Unfortunately, confusion surrounding intended purposes of mitigation settlement monies have created drastic cuts to Virginia’s successful land conservation programs. There is a demonstrated public benefit of consistent, long-term investments in land conservation. These should not be at the expense of mitigation funds intended specifically to reduce the impact of development projects.

The Virginia Land Conservation Fund was reduced from $4.5M to $1.5M in the Senate, while the House eliminates all funding in first year and restores to $4.5M in 2nd year. The loss of $2 million from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation may result in its doors closing on July 1, 2018. Shared concern exists regarding the absence of increases to both farmland and battlefield land preservation and control issues between the legislature and the Department of Conservation and Recreation in acquisition of potential public lands.

The following amendments are of particular concern:

  • Land Preservation Tax Credit (LPTC): 3-5.16#2h / 3-5.16 #2s: Recommends $20k individual cap and budget writers say will equal $6.6 million in savings per year. Recommendation: Remove $20k cap. There is no documentation that this cap will equal $6.6 million in annual savings.  Part of the key to the LPTC’s success is having a predictable program. Landowners put their property under easement last year with the understanding that the limit would go back to $50k in 2018.
  • Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF): 363 #5s: Senate: Removes $2 million in General Fund each year. Senate rationale: VOF was awarded approximately $40 million through two recent mitigation agreements, thereby reducing the need for additional State investment. Recommendation: Restore $2 million per year to VOF. Cutting VOF by $2 million a year would shut down VOF. The mitigation money cannot be used for general operations except relating to management of the mitigation money. VOF’s operational needs increase rather than decrease with this new pot of money to oversee.
  • Virginia Land Conservation Funding (VLCF): 363 A. 1.: Support $4.5M per year for VLCF, as recommended in the Governor’s budget. House: Removes $4.5M in the first year. Recommends keeping $4.5M in the second year. Senate: Reduces from $4.5M to $1.5M both years.
  • Language limiting DCR’s ability to acquire land: Neither the House nor the Senate removed or amended this language. We are concerned about tying the agency’s hands, and that flexibility is needed to be able acquire key pieces of land when they become available for sale. Recommendation: Remove.
  • Language limiting DGIF’s ability to acquire land: 373#1s: This is new language. Recommendation: Remove.
  • Brandy Station Battlefield: Item 363 #3s: This amendment directs the Department of Conservation and Recreation to review the Brandy Station and Cedar Mountain Battlefield properties and make recommendations on their suitability as a historical and recreation area or for development as a State or regional park. Recommendation: Support and strengthen by adding specifics such as timeline for establishing.

Transportation

Transit Funding:

We support budget amendments which, in combination with pending legislation, provide both the full Virginia formula share — $154M — in long-term, dedicated, bondable funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), as well as the $50M per year in funding to match existing federal revenues.

We remain concerned that the statewide transit capital fiscal cliff of $130M per year is not addressed in the budget ($80M per year, in addition to the $50M match to federal funding for WMATA).

We are also concerned that proposed House budget amendments may change the operating assistance allocation model in a way that appears to remove the guarantee of some base level of operating funding for transit. The House amendments also include a new requirement for strategic plans to be developed (445 #6h) and do not provide funding to support the costs of additional planning activities. Some funding should be provided for new planning requirements.

Highway Provisions:

We are generally concerned about using budget language to direct studies of particular projects, and share the following comments on specific amendments:

House:

  • 433 #1h: I-81 study of tolls and improvements — Support with amendment. We support study of I-81 with amendments to ensure land use, local traffic, and transit and rail solutions are included in the analysis.
  • 452 #1h: I-66 tolling algorithm — Support with amendment. We support study of the tolling algorithm but not a mandate to make changes as described. VDOT, the CTB, and the legislature need more information before changes to the tolling are made.  In addition, the study should evaluate and report on: (1.) The extent of tolling compliance and HOV cheating (SOVs with the Flex transponders wrongly set to HOV mode to avoid the tolls); increased numbers of SOV drivers with transponders set to HOV may be crowding the lanes and driving up the toll prices; and (2.) Reevaluation of the off-peak toll prices prior to 6:30 AM caused by having each I-66 tolling gantry charge a minimum $0.50 base price when a lower base price might suffice.
  • 452 #2h: Requires reverse tolling when eastbound widening complete — Support with amendment. Reverse-commute tolling should be adopted and could begin sooner than late 2021, such as when Phase 2 of Dulles Rail is opened. Reverse-commute tolling makes reverse-commute express bus service more viable. And reverse-commute tolling might receive greater public support if VDOT lowers base tolling prices below $0.50/gantry when I-66 is not congested.

Senate:

  • 449 #2s: Directs CTB to work with Maryland regarding improvements to the American Legion Bridge — Support with amendment. The study by Virginia and Maryland should include provisions for extensive bus transit service in the near term and for potential light rail or Metrorail in the future.
  • 450 #1s: Special Structures — Creates special treatment under SmartScale and a potential dedicated funding reserve for the Robert O. Norris Route 3 bridge and the Big Walker Mountain Tunnel — Oppose. Large bridge and tunnel projects should be scored and prioritized like other projects, and there should not be a separate funding category for these projects. Moreover, “large and unique bridge and tunnel structures” is overly vague.

Clean Energy

Offshore wind can provide clean energy at the scale needed to help curb the climate crisis. The wind resource off the Atlantic coast is four times greater than the United States’ entire electric power demand today. Developing this clean energy resource would allow Virginia to meet its carbon emission reduction goals, while also creating new jobs and business opportunities.

$100,000 is requested to produce a master plan or roadmap for developing a sustainable and commercially viable offshore wind industry in Virginia. This money is to be awarded to DMME who will lead a partnership with the Port of Virginia and VEDP to commission such a study. This investment did not make it into the House or Senate versions of the bill.

Environmental Education

Environmental Literacy is an essential skill set. Environmental Education contributes to improved health outcomes, is critical to preparing students for the 21st century workforce, is important to Virginia voters, and is supported by a broad-based coalition.

Support budget Item #128(I) in Governor McAuliffe’s proposed budget to create two new positions to coordinate environmental education efforts in Virginia. The two new positions (replacing four that were eliminated in 2016) would support communication, foster collaboration between formal and informal educators, provide a “depot” for lesson plans, and offer teacher professional development training. This item was included in neither the house nor senate versions of the budget.

For More Information

Clean Water & Fisheries:

Adrienne Kotula, James River Association
Peggy Sanner, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Land Conservation:

Ellen Shepard, Virginia’s United Land Trusts (VaULT)
Dan Holmes, Piedmont Environmental Council
Nikki Rovner, The Nature Conservancy

Transportation:

Trip Pollard, Southern Environmental Law Center
Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth

Clean Energy:

Corrina Beall, Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club