Balancing Economic, Environmental Concerns: Lawmakers Consider Bill

"Fast and furious" is what the state of Connecticut’s environmental permitting process could be if a certain bill gets passed.

The General Assembly's Commerce Committee is considering SB 1019, which would give environmental permits automatic approval if the Department of Environmental Protection doesn’t act on them within 45 days. This slashes the current wait from 180 days.

Not suprisingly, environmental groups are criticizing the proposal.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, calls the proposal a “slap in the face.” In fact, said Brown, this is the third time the committee has tried to get the period of permit consideration cut.

“Last year we had negotiated the number to 90 days if there was no action,” Brown said. “Now they want to slash it to 45. It’s a bad faith move. It’s an all-out, in-your-face attitude that says: ‘We don’t want to be regulated.’ ”

Yet several legislators said the permit process scares off developers and costs money.

State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, a Republican who represents New Canaan, Greenwich and parts of Stamford in the 36th District, said it's "very important" to Connecticut’s economy. A ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Frantz said greater balance is needed between effective regulation and economic stimulation.

“One of the biggest single complaints that I hear is that regulations are just too onerous," Frantz told Capitol DisPatch. "The DEP does great work and their devotion to the environment and preserving is admirable. But it can’t take two to three years to permit something.”

It’s true a more streamlined system is needed, said state Rep. Gail Lavielle, a Republican who represents Wilton and Norwalk in the 143rd District. 

“At a time when helping businesses operate and grow is our highest priority, the state needs to do everything possible to expedite administrative processes like permitting,” Lavielle said. “Permitting delays are frequently cited by businesses as one of the difficulties of doing business in Connecticut. Looking at permitting delays is exactly the kind of thing we should be looking at right now — as opposed to legislation that imposes mandates on businesses, like the proposed paid sick leave bill, which would create further constraints and send a signal that the state is not friendly to business.”

But Lavielle cautioned that a 45-day scenario could result in permits being granted by default in cases where they should be denied. Instead, she said, it might be better for any new permitting legislation to be part of the DEPs overhaul.

“That said, it should still be reviewed during this session, as any improvement in this area would send a positive sign to businesses,” Lavielle said.

The problem was there are no benchmarks for permit applications, said Chris Perone, a Democrat who represents Norwalk in the 137th House District, and member of the Commerce Committee.

“I don’t know if going from 180 days to 45 days is the way to go,” Perone said. “But structure is needed, and developers do need to know what will happen.”

CLCV’s Brown doesn’t buy the argument that the permit process has impeded development.  If anything thwarts approval, it’s that applicants give their applications short shrift in the first place, Brown said.

Brown warned that expediting the process could strain already-stretched DEP resources.

State Rep. Fred Camillo, a Republican representing Greenwich in the 151st District, said he’s seen too many delays for builders, developers and homeowners in his district.

“It’s a tough issue, but one where I lean toward the right of the applicant,” Camillo said. “Delays cost people money and the argument that the DEP is understaffed — you could say that about any agency.”

One solution that is gaining support is the idea of an ombudsman. In previous testimony, the Hartford-based Connecticut Conference of Municipalities said it “advocates a ‘municipal ombudsman’ within each state agency that would be empowered to interact regularly and directly with local governments to move process.”

CCM said it fully supports the bill. “Our members have told us time and again about the delays and problems many projects experience when trying to navigate the bureaucratic permitting process through multiple state agencies,” CCM said in testimony. "Municipal leaders and developers both have explained that the approval processes, with requirements that are either duplicative or counter to each other, can be so long that projects can founder and sometimes are abandoned."

While appreciative of the need to grow the state’s economy, state Rep. Tony Hwang, a Republican representing Fairfield in the 134th District, said he opposes the proposal.

“I do believe we need to expedite the process, but 45 days is far too onerous for us to properly vet the process,” said Hwang who sits on the Environment Committee.

However, Hwang does favor the idea of an agency ombudsman and said all this debate is good for business in the long run. “The perception of outside businesses that see we are having this conversation is a good thing for us as a state,” Hwang said. “It shows we are trying to grow jobs.”

To some, 45 days is a death knell to grassy knolls and babbling brooks.

“On behalf of Environment Connecticut’s statewide membership, I urge you to reject SB 1019,” Christopher Phelps, program director for Hartford-based Enivronment Connecticut, said in written testimony. “This bill is a direct assault on our environment allowing polluters to freely foul the air we breathe, the water we drink and despoil our natural landscape.”