New England Policy Chronicle
Updates from Around the Region
Editor’s Note: A key goal of this publication, along with sharing information and stories about the relationships between society and nature, is to inspire readers to engage with local advocates and policymakers in support of a future that reflects the values of equity and diversity in our society, in our landscape, and in the ecosystems where we live. This effort extends beyond our quarterly publication in the form of a new policy program hosted jointly by Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities and Food Solutions New England. Our work seeks to develop and amplify solutions that advance land and water conservation, and that transition food, forestry, and fisheries systems toward a just and sustainable future. For more information, contact Alex Redfield (alex.redfield@unh.edu).
Connecticut
Connecticut lawmakers and environmental advocates are in the final stretch of their efforts to amend the State Constitution to include a “Green Amendment.” Adopting this amendment would provide constitutional recognition of clean water and air as fundamental rights, granting legal standing to residents whose environmental rights are violated and, accordingly, creating a pathway for citizens and advocates to safeguard those shared resources through the courts.
In 2021, after nearly five years of organizing and unsuccessful attempts in the legislature, New York joined Pennsylvania and Montana as the third state to ratify a Green Amendment within their state constitution. In the following two years, the Pace University Haub School of Law’s Environmental Rights Repository notes 11 relevant and significant cases in the New York courts that seek to hold state agencies, municipal governments, and corporations to account for insufficient regulatory action, weak environmental protection standards, or other similar violations of the public’s right to clean air and water.
Republican opposition to the Amendment will likely be sufficient to prevent this effort from proceeding past the Connecticut General Assembly, but with similar efforts organizing throughout New England and a growing national movement, momentum may be building to see reintroduction in upcoming legislative sessions.
Maine
As Maine officials explore the extent to which the state’s lands and waters are contaminated by the presence of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a series of “forever chemicals” that are dangerous to human health even in unimaginably small quantities), they continue to uncover challenging new dimensions to the environmental crisis that touch on issues of solid waste management, drinking water integrity, agricultural viability, corporate liability for natural resource degradation, and more. New science and policy responses are emerging frequently (See recent coverage from the Portland Press Herald on PFAS runoff from Maine landfills or from NPR on the new EPA rules on PFAS in drinking water), but of particular note is the launch of the Land Acquisition and Stewardship program under the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF). Recognizing the potential impact that PFAS contamination of farmland could have on Maine’s agricultural community, the State allocated $60 million to a PFAS Response Fund in 2021, with $20 million set aside to facilitate the purchase of PFAS-contaminated land from farmers who are ready to sell. This “buy back” program will allow farmers who have recently discovered unsafe levels of PFAS in their soils or groundwater to petition the State to purchase their land and infrastructure at a price calculated as if the land was uncontaminated. To date, 59 Maine farms have been identified as having soil or water PFAS levels that exceed allowable limits, and testing by Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection continues. Since the Land Acquisition program launched in mid-March, four farms have come forward and applied for State acquisition.
Administrators of the PFAS Response Fund have a challenging set of questions ahead as land is acquired by DACF: How will the land be managed while it is held by the State? Is PFAS-contaminated land suitable for solar installation or reforestation? Or is it preferable to maintain open prime agricultural soils for a potential return to agricultural production when remediation strategies become more widely available? In the laudable effort to “make farmers whole” after immediate and catastrophic threats to life and livelihood are discovered, DACF will once again be at the forefront of developing programs and strategies in real time as long-term land management and disposition questions come to the forefront.
For more information, see Maine Public’s archive of extensive reporting on the scope of PFAS contamination and its cascading impacts.
The PFAS Cycle and its intersections with agriculture, waste management, and watershed protection. Courtesy of Michigan PFAS Action Response Team
Massachusetts
As part of a $50 million investment in its Forests as Climate Solutions initiative, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation (Mass DCR) has expanded a set of cost-share programs that support private landowners in improving climate and habitat outcomes in their woodlots. As of 2020, nearly 70 percent of the 3.2 million acres of forest land in Massachusetts is privately owned, predominantly by families and individuals (see figure below), and, accordingly, individual landowners have a significant role to play in supporting the emergence of resilient, diverse, and productive forests across the State. A portion of this larger investment is funding new opportunities for landowners and consulting foresters to spend more time together, to discuss long-term goals and management options, and to draft management plans that account for beneficial climate outcomes. With funding to cover four hours of initial consulting time and two hours specifically dedicated to answering questions landowners have about their management plans, the Healey Administration and Mass DCR are betting that stronger relationships will lead to better plans and, eventually, to healthier forests. These technical assistance funds join a suite of other planning and incentive programs, including Foresters for the Birds, a Mass DCR partnership with Mass Audubon to evaluate existing and potential habitat for a diverse bird population, and the Forest Stewardship Program, administered with Massachusetts Woodlands Institute, to support private forest landowners and municipalities in implementing practices focused on soil protection, carbon retention, and increasing forest adaptive capacity.
With calls for expanding cost-share and incentive programs to support landowners, foresters, and loggers in designing and adopting new management practices resonating around the region (see the Maine Natural and Working Lands Recommendations, or the Vermont Forest Future Strategic Roadmap), analysis of Mass DCR’s program design and uptake may prove useful in informing new program design elsewhere in New England.
More information on Mass DCR’s programs and offerings for landowners can be found on their Service Forestry page.
Developing climate resilience strategies for Massachusetts’ forests will require partnership with private landowners, with nearly 70 percent of the state’s woodlands under private ownership. Map courtesy of Brian Hall. Public ownership information is from Harvard Forest and Highstead’s New England Protected Open Space data. Forest data from National Land Cover Database.
New Hampshire
One consequence of Maine’s heightened tracking of PFAS compounds through the waste stream—and Maine’s statewide ban on spreading of sludge reclaimed from wastewater treatment plants on agricultural fields—is increased transport of solid waste across state lines to New Hampshire. Without farm fields to receive potentially contaminated sludge, the additional volume in the waste stream is putting pressure on disposal contractors, and at least a portion of that additional volume is being trucked to New Hampshire landfills. New Hampshire is an outlier in New England in their out-of-state-trash allowances, ranking 11th in the country in terms of the most landfilled trash relative to population. In comparison, Maine and Vermont rank 41st and 42nd, Massachusetts ranks 49th, and Connecticut is 50th. Where other New England states have recently updated their policies on landfill usage, construction, and waste origin, New Hampshire’s waste policies were last updated in 2005.
As the regional landscape of waste disposal evolves, the New Hampshire legislature is considering a number of bills intended to clarify the future of landfills and disposal in the state. One of the more prominent bills in this arena is HB1630 which, after amendments from the New Hampshire House, includes a moratorium on all new landfills through 2028. Despite strong and compelling support from the public in favor of such a moratorium (515 out of 524 total comments spoke in favor of the moratorium at a public hearing on April 2) and a report projecting that existing landfills have sufficient capacity to handle projected waste through 2034, testimony against the measure from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) cited potential increased costs for local businesses and could carry weight as the moratorium progresses through the legislature. As the bill proceeds, DES is in the midst of reviewing an application from Casella Waste Management to authorize a new landfill next to Forest Lake State Park in Dalton, New Hampshire, adding figurative fuel to the garbage fire.
As the future of the landfill economy is debated in the legislature, Casella Waste Management had received approval in 2021 to expand Mount Carberry Landfill in Success, New Hampshire, by another 24 acres, with relatively little attention. Photo Courtesy of The Berlin Sun
Rhode Island
For the past 40 years, Rhode Island has relied on the regular issuance of Green Bonds as the primary source of state funding for land conservation projects. These bonds have consistently provided sufficient capital to support Rhode Island’s protection of nearly 90,000 acres of land in one of the nation’s most expensive real estate markets. In a departure from that history, Governor Dan McKee’s 2025 Green Economy Bond “pauses” funding for open space acquisition, farmland preservation, and forest and habitat management funding in the interest of addressing land-use conflicts between affordable housing and conservation goals.
Legislative and conservation advocates rallied around a bill introduced by Rep. Megan Cotter (H7750) to address the funding gap. Her proposal would expand the Green Bond to authorize an additional $16 million in bond funding specifically directed toward open space acquisition, farmland preservation, and forestry management, but that initiative appears to have stalled as the House Finance Committee referred the measure for future study. Brian Daniels, Director of the State Office of Management and Budget, defends the original bond proposal as a “pro-growth bond,” in that it includes $20 million for road infrastructure at a business park being used to support the burgeoning offshore wind industry. Though H7750 will not be the vehicle for additional conservation funding, advocates are continuing to press for this line item to be included in the final state budget to be released in June.
For more information, see EcoRI’s coverage of the Green Economy Bond.
Nearly half of the proposed Green Economy Bond will be used to finance additional road infrastructure at the Port of Davisville, one of Rhode Island’s priority staging grounds for offshore wind development. Courtesy of Quonset Development Corporation.
Vermont
With several prominent conservation and wildlife initiatives racing to the finish line before the end of its 2024 session, the Vermont General Assembly is working out the details of the first significant reform to its statewide growth management framework in decades. Efforts to update Vermont’s Land Use and Development law, Act 250, have expanded into a major examination of statewide growth, development, and environmental protection efforts in the context of intersecting housing and biodiversity crises. Several distinct bills have addressed different elements of Act 250 reforms. The primary bill driving these changes (H.687)—with significant modifications in the Senate—has passed both chambers as of this writing, though there are differences to be worked out, and a possible gubernatorial veto.
The pending legislation would empower regional planning organizations to identify areas suitable for dense development and streamline the permitting and review for projects in those high-growth areas. Additionally, the legislation formalizes an opportunity for environmental review before development can proceed where it might jeopardize specific critical natural resources to be identified in a future public rulemaking process. This emerging framework for planning and management seeks to establish a process of balance between the integrity of rural and natural lands and the need to create new pathways for expedient development.
(Editor’s Note: This section has been updated since its initial publication to better reflect the nature of changes made to H.687 that were approved by the Vermont Legislature on May 10.)
The group of legislators organizing behind these reforms shared a report arguing that “Facilitating the development of new housing while ensuring that we are maintaining our rural working lands and ecologically important natural resources are not mutually exclusive goals.” Governor Phil Scott has publicly disputed this assessment, stating that the mission of environmental advocates “is to protect the environment as best they possibly can. My mission is to make Vermont more affordable, create more housing, and make Vermont safer,” he said. “So we have two different missions.”
Other pending legislation in the Vermont Assembly: a bill (S.258) to reform wildlife governance, as described in Walter Medwid’s article in this issue, and a bill (H.706) to ban neonicotinoid pesticides, as more generally called for by Doug Tallamy in his interview.
With a typical range of nearly 50 square miles, black bears are especially susceptible to habitat fragmentation as intact blocks of dense and diverse forest are lost to competing land use needs. Habitat blocks and wildlife connectors would receive higher protection under the proposed changes to Act 250. Photo courtesy of Vermont Fish & Wildlife.
Alex Redfield is the Co-Director of the Integrated Policy Program for Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities and Food Solutions New England. He lives in South Portland, Maine.