1 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

CHAIRPERSONS: Representative Mike Demicco, Senator Christine Cohen

SENATORS: Kushner, Formica, Miner, Haskell, Somers

REPRESENTATIVES: Arconti, Bolinsky, Dillon, Gucker, Hayes, Kennedy, McGorty, Mushinsky, Rebimbas, Ryan, Wilson, Gresko, Harding, Borer, Dubitsky, Horn, MacLachlan, Michel, O'Dea, Piscopo, Reyes, Simms, Vargas, Young, D'Agostino

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Good Morning, I'd like to convene the public hearing for the Environment Committee for Friday, February 15, 2019. As many of you know, the first hour of the public hearing is traditionally reserved for elected officials and public officials, and we will -- we will stick with that tradition, and then after the first hour, we will then alternate between public officials and members of the public. So, those are the ground rules. Anyhow, everyone has three minutes, and then committee members will ask questions if they so choose. We would ask everyone to be respectful and ask that there be no -- no demonstrations of approval or disapproval. We don't want anyone to feel intimidated in any way. So, you know, please be mindful of that. So, the first person signed up to testify today is Senator Paul Formica. Senator, welcome. 2 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR FORMICA (20th): Good morning again, Chairman Demicco and Chairman Cohen, Senator Miner, and I believe Representative Harding is the other. Thank you for the opportunity to spend a minute or two to talk to you about a couple of bills that I'm -- that I'd like to offer some conversation on, committee Bill 5251 and committee Bill 226, that I'll be speaking with today. With regard to committee Bill 5251, I think that everybody in the industry agrees that the taking of shark fins without taking the rest of the fish is not something that anyone is in favor for. I think we're all universally opposed to that type of barbaric way of gathering. But, the way the law, as written, it would seem to eliminate the opportunity to do any type of shark fishing whatsoever. And I have talked to the charter boat captains in my district, and I have a letter (I don't know if you've seen that letter, but I'll make sure that you get the letter from them talking about the economic opportunities that they have for shark fishing in our region)and the language says possession, sale, offers for sale, trades -- any shark fin, so it could be a fin that's attached to a fish that gets sold for meat or whatever.

So, I'd like to offer up some changes, perhaps slowly harvested fins, or unless the entire fish is used, or some kind of language I hope that the committee could come up with so that it would highlight the fact that the barbaric act of just taking a fish, finning it, throwing it back in to let it sink into the bottom of the ocean is not something anybody supports, and I think you'll be 3 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

listening to a number of fisherman who I see sitting behind me who'll probably talk about the same thing.

With regard to committee Bill 226, this kind of solves a problem, and I know that Senator Miner has been working on this with the industry. This is an opportunity that would take advantage of licenses that are given to commercial fisherman in New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, specifically in Connecticut, where they can land their allocated quota in Connecticut, and then if there's leftover quota, with notification, they can bring it to Rhode Island and/or New York and take advantage of the quota there instead of having the opportunity to not -- to have extra fish that may have to just get thrown overboard or whatever happens to that fish. Because you can't just throw a net in and put a meter on it and say I'm only bringin' up 100 pounds. So, there's opportunity for fixing it. So, some of the language in here, I think will be tweaked. I think you'll hear more about that from the industry professionals, specifically line 18 and 19, prior notification to the DEP not later than 48 hours prior. I mean, a lot of these guys aren't fishing 48 hours prior, and the industry standard is one to two hours. You know, so I think talking to the experts behind me might make that clear, and then the opportunity to provide for a seasonal date on this, which could be winter fishing season or instead of a year round.

So, I offer those as conversation pieces, but I'm glad and excited for the opportunity for both of these bills to come forward. One rights a wrong. The other, you know, helps our great commercial industry, and I will add that in Stonington and New 4 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

London, most people don't realize nearly ten million pounds of fish per years run through those operations and gets distributed elsewhere. So, it's a great industry, and it's got a long history here in the state of Connecticut. So, I am mindful of your busy day today, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Thank you, Senator. I just have one question for you with regards to the dual landings. We have testimony from the DEEP Commissioner-designate that the legislation that's proposed, it might be advisable to apply it to a certain type of fish but not to other -- other species. Does that comport with what you understand?

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I think probably the primary fish would be fluke or, you know, that would be applicable to this, but, you know, if there were another species, perhaps sea bass or whatever, that might fall under the, you know, the auspices. I don't know about limiting, you know, legislation on just one thing, but I think that's probably where the commissioner came from on that, but I'd speak to these guys behind me 'cause they're out on the water every day, even when it's five degrees out.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST): Thank you, thank you. So, Senator Cohen has a question for you. Co-Chair.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Good morning.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Good morning, Madam Speaker.

5 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you for your testimony. I just had a couple of questions, and perhaps they are better suited for the fishermen. I don't know what your knowledge level is of this, but what -- could you tell me a little bit about when a fisherman meets the qualification of, you know, the amount that they can land, what happens with the fish that they have to discard? Are they still alive? Are they dead and they toss them back? Could you explain a little bit about that process?

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): As I said, you can't put a meter on the fish to -- on the net to say what's comin' up, so the best question would be to ask these guys what they do with it, but, you know, I suspect that it's not the best use of the fish if they can't bring it in. And, I think, that's what the intent of this bill is to address the opportunity to use everything (1) so it doesn't get wasted and (2) so it gets counted and gets sold.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): And also, you know, in referring to my co-chair's comment on the testimony from DEEP Commissioner-designate Dykes indicated that they are working with the other regulatory authorities in Rhode Island and New York to implement a pilot program. It looks like they're shooting for a target date of 2020. Is this something that you think would be agreeable to the fishing industry?

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I believe -- again, you'll speak to them -- but I believe the dates for the winter fishing may be January 1 on. I'm not quite sure. Senator Miner might know the answer to that, but if it is, that would be 2020, as long as we 6 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

could get it forward. If the winter season starts November 15, then I would suggest the pilot season address that as well.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Representative Michel.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for testifying. Regarding Senate Bill 226, it seems to me if there's more fish in our state or in the other adjacent state, then the resources of one state could be used to compensate for the lack of resources in another state. Fish travel, and so if every day one area redistributes to the other areas, then overall we would be increasing the take of wildlife from our waters, therefore, potentially hurting the fish population even more, therefore causing more imbalance for the neighboring states as well. So, can you comment on this please. Thank you.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you very much for that, and I'm sure that that's a concern; however, I think this is trying to solve a problem that might find fish on the deck of a boat that they can't bring in. So, you know, that's probably worse than not bringing it in and feeding people, if that's the case, but the quotas are relatively low, and I don't know that that would be an overriding concern given the length of the quotas. But again, you may wanna ask these fellas.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Sure. This is for you, Mr. Chair. I understand the idea of the waste, I guess. I think it's kind of what your messaging -- or sending us a message -- but it is -- I think there's 7 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

a huge risk of encouraging more fishing, and my concern is that overall, planetary, we lost more than 90 percent of all of our fish and all of our marine -- marine mammals, and so if we by catch and over-fishing, nets, as you say, are indiscriminatory, so I have a fear that this could actually increase the idea of increasing fishing for more business because then you can double your catch and then you can still sell it next door. And, I don't know, it seems like a very risky bill for conservation. That's kind of my worry. And then, addressing Bill 5251, which I proposed, which is THE ACT FORBIDDING THE POSSESSION AND TRADE OF SHARK FINS, I appreciate your concern with the wording. I think it is definitely something that we will look into because I believe we need to be more precise with the bill. It is not about banning fishing. It is not pointing to fishing. So, I appreciate your concern, and definitely we will look into better wording for this bill so that it's more precise. I hope other speakers regarding this bill will take note that it is not to ban fishing of sharks. Thank you.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, Representative. I didn't think it was. I just was making a point. Thank you for clarifying.

REP. MICHEL (146th): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Are there any other questions for Senator Formica? Yes, Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): It's not really a question for Senator Formica, but I do think that there are 8 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

individuals that are here that might be able to shed some light on some of the questions that have been asked already that I think would be best if it came from them. They're in the business, so I'll hold my questions until they testify. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Any other questions for Senator Formica? It looks like you got away easy today, Senator.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that I have a fish market because I was a lousy fisherman, so that's why I do it the easy way. So, thank you very much for your time and consideration today.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. Thank you. So, next on the list is Representative Mitch Bolinsky.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): Good morning to the entire committee, particularly the honorable Co-Chairs Demicco and Cohen, Vice-Chairs Kushner and Gresko, and I say good morning to my Ranking Members Harding and Miner. My name is Mitch Bolinsky, and I'm here to testify before you in strong support of House Bill 5394, AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRADE OF IVORY AND RHINOCEROS HORN IN THE STATE. I ask the committee's flexibility. I sit here with Brandy Culp, who is from the Wadsworth Atheneum here, and she is on a very tight time schedule. So, what I'm gonna do is abbreviate my comments and then turn the microphone over to her because what she has to say is far more on the expert level than what I have to say, but I would like to introduce the concept of this bill and have everybody on this committee 9 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

understand the absolute critical nature of this bill for not just conservation, but also for the preservation of a very important industry in the state of Connecticut, which is our Connecticut Antiques Trail and the antiques business, which is 1000 businesses employing tens of thousands of people for $2.5 billion dollars worth of economic impact. But the bill, as written, represents a voluntary, caring compromise that's offered by the Connecticut antique dealers, many leading cultural institutions, including the Wadsworth, Connecticut Historical Society, Yale University Art Galleries, the Slater Museum of Norwich, and more, as well as collectors and investors that own, trade, display ethically-acquired, legally-owned historical objects, works of art, musical instruments, and antiquities.

The purpose of the bill two-fold. First, I think it's safe to say that everybody in this room, and everybody that everybody in this room knows, feels very, very strongly about the ethical treatment of animals. We're all animal lovers, and we wanna see an end to the illicit trade of modern ivory and rhinoceros horn that's taken illegally from the wild by brutal, cruel poaching and trafficking. We address that in this bill. Second, my concern, and the concern of thousands of people in the state of Connecticut, is that we must preserve the state's antiques industry, the collectors of legal antiquities, and these historical institutions that use antiquities to educate us and the next generations, not just about state history but also about the need for conservation. So, I'm going to go abbreviate. You have my testimony, and I would 10 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

like to introduce everybody to Brandy Culp from the Wadsworth Atheneum. [background talking]

BRANDY CULP: Thank you so much, and thank you to the committee. My name is Brandy Culp, and I'm the Richard Koopman Curator of American Art at the Wadsworth Atheneum. We are stewards of more than 50,000 objects respective of global and cultural property. Nearly all of the art in our care originated from individuals in the private market, including over 1000 objects containing or made entirely of ivory. Thus, I'm concerned with the greater art world beyond the walls of a singular museum and support an open system of trade that works with us to protect cultural heritage. The protection of endangered species and the preservation of genuine antiques are not in conflict. The museum deplores the senseless killing of big game animals and wants to discourage the illicit ivory and rhinoceros horn trade. However, we believe this legislation comingles a desire to preserve and protect animals in the wild with issues that may negatively impact the antiques market and the preservation of cultural property.

Ultimately, we believe this bill may be redundant in the fact that we have federal laws that protect and regulate the trade in ivory and rhinoceros horn. And, while I support the inclusive nature of the datelines established by this legislation, I urge the committee, at minimum, to rethink and possibly amend certain aspects of this bill, and that would be specifically the description in line 33 that the ivory is part of an antique as well as lines 36-42, the primarily or wholly and minimally changed qualifications. The inclusion of this language with 11 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the bill's definition of an antique criminalizes a whole class of objects. The exemption made for institutions does not outweigh the harmful ivory legislation that may work against greater public good.

Without certain changes, this may have a chilling effect on the legitimate antique objects held privately, leading to the ultimate destruction and neglect of historically significant artifacts. As a curator, and I represent other curators in the field, we've actually seen this destruction. We've seen the replacement of parts and components with plastics and modern materials, and please keep in mind that the object is a document of the past. It helps inform us as we look to the people before us, and it helps inform our future. So, I urge the committee to remove line 33 and lines 36-42 of this legislation, and without these important amendments, this legislation may have longstanding consequences on our cultural heritage and the preservation of significant artifacts. Thank you much.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): Thank you Brandy. So, just in following that, very, very quickly --

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Representatives of art, it will have to be quick, only because other people are waiting, but okay. It will have to be quick, please.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): I am going to be quick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This object is a 250-year-old piece of art that is made mostly of ivory, and the sections that Ms. Culp refers to, as far as the whole or in part, are sections that need to be 12 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

addressed for our cultural institutions. You'll actually see the testimony or hear the testimony of Kevin Tulimieri a little bit later, who is one of the state's foremost experts in antique art, and he's gonna show you a photograph of an ivory sculpture that was done in, I think, 1740, and it's one of the absolute most impressive and wonderful pieces of artwork that sits in the Atheneum, and it is made entirely of ivory, from a day when nobody knew the brutality, but it was a legitimate part of Connecticut history, and the Connecticut economy of a couple of hundred years ago was dependent on very much the nautical theme and using objects that are no longer necessary for use as the base of an artwork. You would not know that this is ivory, but this is a priceless piece of art.

So, there will be need to do some amending to the bill as written, but I do also caution that we don't want to make the bill one that extincts an industry and our cultural heritage, while also doing everything that we can in our power to support federal law and put an end to poaching and what could potentially extinct these majestic animals. I'll just conclude quickly by saying on July 6, 2016, the United States Government, under executive order from President Obama, did issue a national near-total federal ban on the commercial trade of ivory, and in Connecticut we need to support that and also express our progressive desire to join other states in our outrage against the taking of ivory. But, to destroy our heritage and to devalue the estates of many people and delegitimize our cultural institutions in the process would be a terrible tragedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 13 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

BRANDY CULP: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you Representative and thank you Ms. Culp. I'm a little bit disappointed, only because I thought that we had finally, after several years, come to a point where we had a good compromise that would be able to accommodate the antique industry in Connecticut. So, Ms. Culp, I just want to make sure I understand, you're saying that lines -- which lines need to be deleted or amended?

BRANDY CULP: The description in line 33 that ivory is part of an antique as well as lines 36-42. We're so close. We really are. But, the primary, wholly, and minimally changed qualifications create difficulties for museums and the trade.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay, all right. Thank you. So, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on which section we're talking about. And, I guess, the other question that always comes up for me and for others I imagine is the idea of being able to identify what is old ivory and what is new ivory, and we've had conflicting testimony over the last couple of years as to whether that can be -- that can be satisfactorily adjudicated by experts. So, I’m just curious to hear your -- your opinion of that.

BRANDY CULP: I've heard some of this testimony over the last two years, and I think that Kevin is probably best to speak on that subject, having handled both over many, many years. It is extremely difficult, but with the artifacts that we are 14 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

specifically addressing, they fall into a question - - they're less questionable. We're talking about, for instance, parts and pieces of larger objects as well as ancient medieval artifacts. We have heard of the destruction of an 8th century basically triptych because it was ivory, but of course it documented so well daily life in the period through its scenic carving. So, that's probably not a direct answer.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I'll be curious to hear what Mr. Tulimieri has to say about that, but thank you, and thank you for coming to testify today. I'm sure committee members have questions. Representative Wilson.

REP. WILSON (66TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming to give us your information today. I wanna take this down to a more simple personal level rather than the institutional level. So, what you're sayin' is, if the lines 33 and then 36-40 are not removed, my grandfather's Steinway that has a broken key could not be restored or repaired with a piece of ivory taken from, let's say, a similar piano that had been warehoused for purpose of cannibalizing for parts, and so my restorer could not replace that broken key with a key from another, let's say, piece of instrument that he owned, let's say, and had stockpiled in his workshop. [background talking]

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): Thank you for the question, Representative. There's the exemption for musical instruments that were produced prior to February 26, 1976, in the federal law, and what we see with these instruments is that if your grandfather's piano 15 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

becomes damaged and it needs to have a key replaced, typically what is done by the people that fix instruments is that they do have a pre-1976 piano that they scavenge parts from. There's also the other solution, because when you think of ivory, you can actually almost think of it as the plastic of our past. Right now, plastics can be molded, colored, shaped, and textured in ways that make them hard to detect from other much more rare items, even such as ivory, that we do not wanna take from the wild. So, depending on the person who's doing the restoration and depending on the tolerance of cost that your grandfather has, he could go the route of finding an antique piano for parts, which is gonna be the expensive route of doing that replacement, or they can fabricate a new key veneer (because the key itself is not ivory, it's only veneered in ivory), and then they would match it perfectly, just like when you go and get a dental implant they match it to the teeth next to it -- basic same technology. So, that in and of itself is not problematic because it can be done in one way or the other. So, that's actually about the easiest question that we'll probably face. So, thank you very much.

REP. WILSON (66TH): Thank you for your question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Yes, Representative Michel.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for testifying today. I'm curious, the museums were exempt in the past ivory bill ban efforts, so why is Wadsworth opposing if we remove the specific 16 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

lines, which would basically render the bill meaningless?

BRANDY CULP: I go back to the statement about the greater art world, and it is so important to go beyond our own walls. There's an industry that supports the health of our cultural institutions, and so we're looking at this in a community-based manner.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): Representative Michel, if I might add, the distinction of an item that, when we're talking about in whole or in part, you're talking about in the cases of items that are more than 50% ivory, items that are very frankly historically documented. So, you know, these are not new items. They are not on the bubble. They are part of collections, and they have documentation because that's part of the process of owning an antiquity -- you must insure it, just like you have valuables in your home that you must insure because they exceed the limits of your insurance policy. Your insurance company will not give you coverage on something that you have not had appraised.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I appreciate it. I'm glad it's documented. The USFWS Law Enforcement have difficulty telling old from new ivory, as we mentioned earlier, but doesn't that make it so that we have a moral debt to elephants.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

REP. MICHEL (146TH): The USFWS Law Enforcement have difficulty telling old from new ivory, and it's been 17 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

a difficulty in the past, and so don't we have a moral debt to elephants.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): We could talk about this quite endlessly, but there is a problem in defining it -- the item, and dating the item definitively. However, there is science that can be applied to it. So, it becomes a cost burden on somebody if they're accused of holding illicit ivory, but if it is indeed an antique, there are tests that can be done. And again, you know, as Ms. Culp referred, the expert in the room is actually sitting over there. That's Kevin Tulimieri, and he'll be testifying later, but my understanding is there's analysis that can be done based on moisture content and other things that date, you know, the day that it actually ceased to be a living organism. I would be making up an answer if I went any further than that because I do not know the science. It's a very good question, Representative.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Okay, and I don't think the bill is applying to inheritance of ivory, so I just wanted -- sorry, thank you for your comments.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): Okay. If I can add something, Mr. Chairman, just very quickly?

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Please.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): There's a presumption here that dealers of an ivory containing antiques in the state of Connecticut are trafficking. That's -- when you hear testimony from some of the opponents to this bill that are gonna wanna amend it into being something nasty that bans ivory, there's going 18 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

to be a tacit implication that the people in the state of Connecticut that deal in antiques and antiquities are traffickers. That is categorically untrue. You're dealing with an industry that has great knowledge. You're dealing with institutions that have incredible knowledge, and you're dealing with objects that have history. These people do not traffic, and if you look at the prosecutorial evidence that will be presented to you by another person who may testify today, you'll notice that all prosecutorial instances that are referred to in their documentation, not one of them has happened in Connecticut. We do not have an industry that is conspiring for the extinction of these majestic animals. They just want to have their antiquities and participate in responsible public policy that slams the door on that which operates outside of their realm of reality.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Oh, sorry.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Hold on, Representative. You know what, we're not gonna get -- we're not gonna engage in a debate here. Do you have a question for Representative Bolinsky, Representative?

REP. MICHEL (146TH): You just mentioned that maybe a lot -- a huge amount of knowledge in the industry -- I don't know about the hearsay about saying -- calling it poaching or whatnot, but regarding the huge amount of knowledge, we still can't date it. So, that was in answer to your comment. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gresko, do you have a question? 19 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. One quick question. Can you give me an estimate as far as the Atheneum is concerned, if this bill was to become law currently as written, what the financial cost would be to the Atheneum? I mean, one day you would have X-amount of valuable, and the next day you would lose -- give me a ballpark figure?

BRANDY CULP: Don't think this is about a dollar figure. This is about putting our cultural assets at risk, and those assets have no figure. They are invaluable to our understanding of the past and the future.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Are there further questions for the representative or for Ms. Culp? Okay, thank you very much for your testimony. I very much appreciate it.

REP. BOLINSKY (106TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you representatives and senators. We appreciate it, and we stand ready to answer any questions that you have in front of a public forum or in private, but you know, the lessons of history deserve our respect. Thank you very much.

BRANDY CULP: Thank you very much.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Thank you. So, the next person to testify will be Senator Somers. Welcome.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Good morning.

20 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Senator, you know what, would you mind using that microphone? I think it projects a little bit better so -- thank you.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Good morning. Are we happy it's Friday? Representative Demicco, Senator Cohen, Representative Gresko, and Senator Miner, and other distinguished members of the Environment Committee, I thank you for letting me testify today briefly on three bills. The first bill that I would like to testify on is SB 226, that's AN ACT AUTHORIZING A DUAL LANDING OF FISH IN THE STATE.

Thank you for allowing me to testify for this very important bill for our commercial fishing industry here in Connecticut. As you are aware, fishing is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, and in just this past month in New England, we've lost two of our fisherman off the coast of Block Island during a weather event where the boat encountered bad weather, sank, and only two out of the three people survived. In addition to the dangerous conditions, our last commercial fishing fleet in Connecticut, which is located in southeastern Connecticut, comprised of New London and Stonington, has been faced with what could be stated as unfair quotas compared to other Atlantic states, increased costly regulations. Right now, they are federally mandated to have an inspector on their boat that they must pay for. That inspector costs $750 dollars a day. But now, they are facing windmills being placed in one of the last areas that they can actually fish, and those pose very large navigation hazards and will significantly impact their future existence. In trying to offer some kind of compromise or relief to our last commercial fishing 21 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

fleet, which has history here in Connecticut, one of the things we could do is to simplify the landing process of fisherman that hold dual licenses.

One of the things, I think, that is important to point out is that there is a limited number of licenses that are available. Many of our fisherman hold a license in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York because we are so close on the waterways to travel between these states. This bill that's in front of you gives the outline that would allow the DEEP to enter into an agreement with other states to allow for dual landings. It specifically does not address species, timeframe, because I believe that should be determined by the DEEP and the surrounding states.

What this would allow the fisherman to do is currently, right now, if they hold a license in three different states, they have to go out sometimes 30-50 miles off of shore, get their catch, come back into Connecticut, land their fish. Another day, they have to go out 50 miles from shore, come into Rhode Island, and land their fish in Rhode Island, and the same for New York. This bill would allow them to go out one day and get their quota for all three states, come in, land it in Connecticut, land it in New York, and then land it in Rhode Island. You're not taking any more fish than you are currently taking. What you are doing is saving fuel, you're increasing safety by the fact that the crew only has to make one trip, and you're reducing the bycatch. So, therefore, this would not only increase safety of our fisherman, it results in less fuel, less crew time, and this would simply allow fisherman some relief. Instead of having to 22 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

make three trips 50 miles off of shore in dangerous conditions, they would be able to do it once. This small amount of relief would be a significant improvement in their daily activities that they have right now in the state of Connecticut.

I would like to point out in the bill there are a few things that would have to be altered in the language. I know that this is initial language, but in line 6, it refers to taking fish from Connecticut. It should be Connecticut and federal waters because they fish in federal waters. And, it also specifies here that a fishing boat from Connecticut would come in on its return, and it would land in Connecticut first, then it would go to Rhode Island (I think it says Rhode Island), and then New York. I would like to leave that open because if a fishing boat is out, they may very well wanna land in New York first, then Rhode Island, and finally in Connecticut, where they are based. So, I think that's something that should be left open to, you know, the DEEP and the surrounding states to enter into the agreement on exactly what they want that language to be. So, that is my testimony on that first bill.

The second bill that I would like to speak to is HB 5251, that's AN ACT PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF AND TRADE OF SHARK FINS. I share the same concerns as Senator Formica, I will not go through them all, in the way that the language is crafted. This would significantly impact our fisherman because dogfish are shark, and they have a fin on them the way that it is written, and there is a quota on dogfish. It also has implications for Mystic Marine Life Aquarium and the Institute for Underwater 23 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

Exploration. They have sharks in their facility. The way this is written, they would not be able to have those sharks in their possession. I will remind everyone that is one of our number one tourist destinations in Connecticut. And I understand the intent from what Representative Michel has indicated, but the way the bill is written right now, it's not something that I could support and it would have unintended consequences.

The last bill that I would like to speak on today is committee Bill 234, this is AN ACT CONCERNING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR CURBSIDE FOOD WASTE COLLECTION IN ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS. I will go through this quickly. This really is something that I think is very, very important. This committee in the past was instrumental in passing Public Act 11-217, which provides a phased-in approach to commercial organic recycling. Back when this law was passed, Connecticut generated about 300,000 tons of food waste. Now the numbers are over 500,000 tons, and if this were to be sent to a digester, we could significantly create energy from the digester. The commercial food waste diversion mandate has produced results. We have one right now, but it really hasn't provided an opportunity for municipalities to really engage in this process.

I will just share with you that last winter I was able to visit the city of Milan, where 1.3 million people do food-side waste curb -- waste collection. It's separated from other household items, and it goes to a digester that produces renewable natural gas, and the food waste is used to power the trucks that collect the food waste. In addition to that, it has taken over 800,000 tons of food waste out of 24 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the regular incinerator lane for energy. That makes the incinerators run at a much more efficient level because you're taking all the water-based materials out of the incineration, and it's a really circular environmental economy there. They also use the power that's generated from this digester to power and to provide water to a -- I don't know the square footage -- but this enormous greenhouse that I visited that actually is used to help addicts come off of opiate addiction, and they're given a new opportunity to work within this greenhouse, a new environment. All with no energy and no water coming from the digester. It also creates this amazing compost material that can be taken, it could be bagged and sold, and this is something that I think is very important for us to look at. One of the critical issues with the whole idea of food waste collection and recycling and composting and digestion is the bag that the food waste is put in, and what I would suggest is that we look at a bag that is BPI certified. That's what I saw in Italy. Those bags are biodegradable and compostable. They work well in a digester, and they're plant-based, and it's something that's used throughout the country, which is really, really quite something to see.

There is money that could be available. My suggestion would be that there is a solid waste fee that is added. It's 40 cents a ton here. Most states it's $5 dollars to $10 dollars a ton. So, I think there's an opportunity to look there if we wanted to go ahead and fund this program, and this would include municipalities that are within a 20- mile radius of the current digester that we have here to see if they wanna enter into it to see how 25 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

it goes for them and bring it back and look at the results.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator, and what I should've said at the beginning, other than welcome, was welcome back to the Environment Committee. So, are there any questions by committee members? I suspect that there will be. Representative Michel.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Chair Demicco. Thank you Senator Somers for testifying. I feel like we are almost in a similar situation, where you mention rewriting for your bill and same thing with mine. So, obviously, I agree with you that the shark fin bill should be more precise and more pointed towards the goal. I do have a question, and I'm glad that I will get the opportunity to ask you. Is it possible that say a fishing vessel would not be at full capacity and would be at its quota but then realizes, hey why don't I hang out a little longer and throw a net again in the water and catch some more fish, since I can now actually do the dual landing? Don't you see this as a potential opportunity to increase fishing for fisherman who want to do more fishing? And, I'm not against business, I'm just talking in regards to conservation, which I have serious concerns about. So, is it possible that this could encourage just more fishing because I don't see where it would not?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Well, I think maybe I should explain how it -- actually how the fishing is done. So, each state has its own quota. There would be no more fish taken than is taken now. Most of the fisherman that are -- you're gonna hear from today, they have something called a dual license, which 26 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

there's a limited number of licenses available. So, in Connecticut, you have a license to fish and bring in X-amount of fish. Rhode Island, you have a license and you're allowed to bring X-amount of fish. If there was someone out in the water, 50- miles out, and they don't have a Rhode Island license, they can't take any more fish than their Connecticut license. If they have a Connecticut license and a Rhode Island license, they could take the amount for both. They're doing that now. They're just doing it on separate days. The only thing this does is combine three days work into one for the fisherman. No additional fish is taken, and actually it's more environmentally friendly because you're using less fuel -- making one trip versus three -- and the bycatch, which is the fish that is caught inadvertently in the nests, is much lower or reduced because you have a larger quota that you're getting. The fish that is caught inadvertently in the net is dead, they throw it overboard.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Okay. Thank you for your comment, and again, I will work on the wording of the shark fins bill. Thank you.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Thank you.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. I have a question, and I'm sure other members do as well, but while we're on the topic of Bill 226, DUAL LANDINGS OF FISH. So, Senator, I'm looking at a testimony from someone else who says that this measure is contrary to the interests of small commercial fishing vessel operators or day boat 27 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

operators, as the summer seasonal quotas would be caught faster and by more and larger vessels. Do you see that as a problem?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): That is why this bill does not -- I don't see that as a problem because, again, there's a limited number of fish that can be caught, and the license designates what the quota is. So, therefore, it's the same amount of fish that's gonna be taken, and as far as the summer season, that's why this bill is written in a manner that is just the framework. When you look at the language, it says that the Connecticut DEP will enter into an agreement with Rhode Island and New York and -- but they're not -- if they don't come all on board, that's okay. They can just enter into an agreement with one state because they would be the ones -- they're the experts to flush out what season and what species. That's not in this bill for a specific reason because we're not the experts. If they wanted to have a dual landing on XY and Z fish, that's fine. If they don't wanna include summertime, that's something that can be discussed among the states. I think they're the ones that are the best suited to make that decision, and within this, you know, speaking to other states, the stakeholders, the fisherman, the day boat folks, they're all in the same room. So, I do not see that as -- you know, you can talk to the fisherman that are here too specifically. I don't see that as an issue. This is something that North Carolina and Virginia do currently. They have an agreement for dual landings, so they can land fish in both of those states, like we're trying to do here. Again, it's safety, it's environmentally more sound, and it's safer for our fisherman. 28 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Thank you. I believe Senator Miner has a question for you, Senator.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): I don't -- I don't really have a question. It is - it is a complicated process because there are state and federal guidelines. There have been a number of meetings with the commercial fishing fleet with folks that represent the industry that buys and sells fish and the agency, and so while I don't think this language hits the target exactly, there was a long discussion this summer about developing a pilot program that would be specific to winter months only. And so, I think at least at this point, that's the only area the agency is looking at. I think it would probably make this an impossibility if we developed a regulation that would allow it to be almost anywhere, anytime, any species, and at least that was my sense of the hearings that we had this summer. So, the question and the comment is a good one with regard to the impact of this decision on certain types of gear, but I do believe that the intent is not to have the impact of this decision fall onto people that operate smaller boats in the summer, but we can talk about that later. Thank you.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes, I would agree with that. That's not the intent. The reason that this bill was written broadly is because it -- if the DEEP that they wanted to just do winter months, they have that ability within the language of this. They can decide that. They're the ones that have to enter into the agreement. But, we didn't want to 29 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

pass legislation that so narrowly defines what months and what species, so that if they find something is working really well, they have an opportunity amongst the states to then add -- whether it be another month or another species within the confines of them being the experts. That's why it's written broadly -- because we didn't wanna have to come back every single time for every species and every month, and within the framework of this language, they would be able to do exactly what Senator Miner has described.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Oh, yes, before you go, my co-chair has a question for you.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you. Thank you, Senator Somers, for your testimony. I just had a question with respect to Bill 234 and the anaerobic digesters. Has there been discussion with specific municipalities about being a part of this pilot program, and have any expressed interest in doing so? Or, are we just sort of throwing it out to those municipalities that are in -- within that 20- mile radius, and then hoping that, you know, the townspeople of that municipality will be on board with us? Because it is a significant -- there's a significant education process that needs to take place and really reworking the framework by which we throw our trash away.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): That's a good question, thank you. There are many towns that actually are doing this. They just don't take it to a digester. And typically what we would see in a pilot program like this was the DEP would go out and solicit the municipalities and say, here's what we're entering 30 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

into, are you interested in, you know, maybe being one of the selected municipalities that would like to try the food waste program. That way, everybody within the radius has an opportunity to weigh in whether they would like to be part of the program or not, and that's why we said within 20 miles because that's the only digester that we have and -- at this point -- and then we could -- they could select from there. We did make recommendations that they should possibly look at a larger city -- or a larger, more urban area, because it's easier to do the food waste collection -- and then some smaller towns, but usually there's a solicitation out to the area to see who would like to participate rather than have somebody say I want to because then this way everyone's on an equal footing as to who would like to apply to be part of the pilot program or not.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator, and again I think you have another question from Representative Gucker.

REP. GUCKER (138TH): Real quick, I know there's some -- and thank you for allowing me to ask you this question and thank you for coming out. Along with the digester, I just have a couple of questions. I think it sounds like a great program as far as helping us deal with our waste issues but also generating renewable energy. There are some bills out right now with plastic bag bans going on, and there's this idea of these recyclable or these plastic bags that break down. Now some say it doesn't happen like it should. Some say it does. In this digester, what would be the method? I mean, would they be using a recyclable bag? Would they be just going into a container? Because I think it may 31 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

come up later when we talk about the plastic bag situation.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Sure. Well, I can say, you know personally, I hate the title banning plastic bags because plastic is a property and process, it's not a material, and the plastic bags that we see in the grocery stores I think are made of polyethylene. So, plastic is the process, it's not the material. So, in this particular case, what I was suggesting is using the same -- it wouldn't have to be the same -- I guess it would be the same specifications as what we saw overseas, which is BPI certified, biodegradable, and compostable. And those bags come in a variety of thicknesses, but there's one specifically that is used for food waste collection. It's similar to what you would find in a grocery store when you're putting your produce in a bag. In Europe, they have biodegradable, compostable bags that are used when you put your peppers in there, and it's the same type of bag. It says in there that they would be given a kit that would have a compost container and they would use those bags, and they degrade, and they are plant-based, and they are used in digesters (excuse me) all across Europe. So, that's what I was thinking would be the best bag because you can just tie it up and put it outside for food waste collection. There are obviously different thoughts on banning the bag versus not banning the bag. My thoughts on that are if you ban the bag, you have to have something available for people who forget to bring their own, so I would rather have it be a bag that is biodegradable and compostable than buying the current polyethylene bag that is -- never breaks down and is horrible for the 32 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

environment. I'm not sure if I answered your question, but I hope I did.

REP. GUCKER (138TH): No, that's fine. All I was just trying to put in there is if -- I like what you have with this, I just don't want another bill to come down that then comes back to this being a problem. So, it's kind of just asking the question before it becomes an issue. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for comin' in. I'm very interested in this - - in the biodegradable bags and creating this pilot program. Do you know of any municipalities that have expressed interest in participating in something like this?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Well, I know that some of my municipalities would love to entertain something like this, but they're not close enough to a digester. That's one of the issues that we have -- the permitting for a digester is cumbersome to say the least. That's something that should be looked at. But, no, the reason that we chose the 20-mile radius is because we had to put it close to where the food waste could be collected. But again, I know out of my district of eight towns, there's three or four that would be on board to try this, but they're just too far from the digester. So, I'm confident that if we put out a solicitation, I guess I'll call it, for municipalities to participate in this that we will absolutely get some takers. I think there's a keen awareness on all the recycling 33 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

issues that we have here in the state of Connecticut and actually across the United States, and I know that everyone is looking for ways to generate renewable energy, and what a better way to take essentially, you know, food waste, put it into a digester, 45 days later you can use the gas to power vehicles, you can use the gas to generate power to the grid, you can use the gas to power greenhouses. There's compost that's -- this wonderful compost that's a byproduct, and the water can be recycled.

So, it's a win-win, and I think that, you know, especially even our younger generation is something looking for us to be the stewards, and Europe is way advanced because they have no -- they have no room, and so they've had to be creative in how they recycle. And I think that this would be a great opportunity for people to see what it's like to be able to get in the mindset of separating your food waste, and it also helps the other energy facilities because you're taking out all this -- this aerobic compound that's all water out of, you know, an incinerator, where you're trying to burn water. So, it just makes great sense, and I'm sure that we will -- I guess the worst thing that could happen is that we don't have municipalities that want to participate, but I'm confident that we will.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): It almost seems like a chicken and egg problem, where you don't have digesters in your area because perhaps they don't have a feed source, and that if -- and the municipality isn't doing this program because they have nowhere to bring it, so, you know, which one do you start first? And now, with regard to the 34 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

compostable bags, do you know how available they are in the States or in Connecticut?

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes, I think that they are available right now. You can buy them online. There's a multitude of them. You know, the one that I saw, in particular, caught my eye because it is plant-based, and there's a lot of data behind it. There's data that's been done by a -- it's called [inaudible-01:03:33], they're a think tank on cities and urban recycling out of Europe. So, it's been done, you know, in other countries for quite some time. They're all over Europe. So, I thought that would be the good one to start with because we have data. We're not starting over from scratch, and you know, the results are there. The digester that I saw is the second largest digester in Europe. It could power easily a small city, based on the amount of energy that it can produce.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Well, there's certainly interesting digesters around the state. I know there are a lot of farms, the big dairy farms, that are -- some of them are looking to establish digesters, and perhaps this could help them with their feed stock, as I understand that food waste produces more energy than cow manure. So, it would -- perhaps a program like this would be helpful to them as well.

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): One of the things that I think is most interesting is that in the city of Milan, which is a very large city for Europe, they produce 800,000 tons of food waste they take out for their digester. In Connecticut alone, we have about over 500,000 tons of food waste. We waste a lot of 35 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

food. So, that's a lot of energy that could be happening from that food. I'd love to put a digester in my town, but we have this huge pig farm that everybody brings their food waste to. So, I'm competing with the pig farm for energy. So, I think that this is definitely something that, you know, absolutely should be looked at. I think if we pilot it, and we get these municipalities on board, that could be a model for other areas in Connecticut, and then we can work closer with the DEEPs to see that the permitting to get a digester goes more quickly.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions by committee members for Senator Somers? No? Okay, Senator thank you very much, appreciate it.

So, we are now into the second hour of the hearing, so we will -- we will begin hearing from members of the public. We will do the bills in order that they are listed on the agenda. So, the first bill is Senate Bill 226, and the first person signed up is Robert Guzzo or Gazzo (I'm not sure which) -- Guzzo. ["Yep" in background, along with crosstalk] And I should note that we do have one more representative who wants to testify, and when he is in the room, we will certainly call him to the microphone to testify. But, in the meantime, Mr. Guzzo, the floor is yours.

ROBERT GUZZO: Okay. Good morning.

36 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): And you have three minutes, as you many know.

ROBERT GUZZO: I'll do it quick.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay, and then we can ask you questions afterwards.

ROBERT GUZZO: Great. I'm representing the Southern New England Fishermen's and Lobstermen's Association. I'm the vice president. I have the backing of them about this 226. I'm in favor landing our, you know, the fluke, like we've been talking -- or summer flounder -- in one trip instead of three, wasting time and losing lives, and conserving the fish at the same time 'cause we stay out there longer to get our 600 pounds. We try to catch somethin' else and the fluke are still with it. Fish all swim together. And then we hauled out the other fluke, and we gotta throw it overboard to get more fish. If we had time to get the other fish for where we have licenses, we'd be able to load it on and do it in one time and stay off the grounds, and we'd save a lot of fuel. During the wintertime, we steam out anywhere from 50 to 80 miles to get the summer flounder. That’s where they -- they migrate offshore. I can fill the boat up with fluke. I have nowhere to go with it. Every state dictates, where I can -- where I live dictates what I can catch, which is wrong. I'm in federal waters. It should be all the same everywhere, but it isn't. So, we have to work state-by-state. If I have a license for three states, I'd like to put it on at one time. It was a -- you know, it's a long time comin'. I'm a commercial fisherman for 45 years, and I've been up at the Statehouse chasing this 37 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

stuff in the '90s with Blumenthal, chasing about the fluke, and we're still at zero. This is the fastest we've had. Representative Miner has helped us a lot, so has Senator Somers, and I really wanna thank them for getting' it this far. Anythin' I can do to answer any questions? I'm here to answer 'em.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Guzzo. I appreciate that. I will ask committee members if they have any questions. And -- Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): So, I think part of what is hard for people to understand is what are the quotas that we're talking about?

ROBERT GUZZO: You're talking about quota -- each state has its own quota, and every state doles it out the way they want. And during the wintertime, it's a little bit more because we have to go further offshore, so they give us a bigger quota. Now this 600 pounds is only once every two weeks in Connecticut, and the same thing in Rhode Island, it's 1200 pounds every two weeks. Rhode Island it's 700 a week. You know, so we can combine this -- fishing, instead of like I said three times, like how we do it in once. And, the quotas are not fair the way they're given out, but we're not gonna fight that story here. We'll try to rectify some of the problems we have.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): And so, the idea is that if you can combine those quotas, there's less bycatch, there's --

ROBERT GUZZO: Less bycatch, less fuel --

38 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Less dead discards.

ROBERT GUZZO: Right.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): So, there's a conservation benefit.

ROBERT GUZZO: Absolutely.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Not only is there a conservation benefit in terms of fueling --

ROBERT GUZZO: And I'm not sticking around after my 600 fluke and tryin' to get -- I'm gonna stick around and try to get somethin' else to go with it, and I'm gonna kill more fluke in the process.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Right.

ROBERT GUZZO: Where if I were to concentrate on the fluke, I could get the fluke and leave.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Mr. Guzzo, I'll ask -- and maybe it's already been satisfactorily answered, but I'm still unclear -- you were in the room earlier when I mentioned this other testimony that this potentially will put the day fisherman at a disadvantage.

ROBERT GUZZO: Yeah, I don't think it would because their quotas are so small durin' the summer. They're 100 pounds a day maybe or 50 pounds a day. Guys are gonna run across states for 50 pounds. You know what I mean? 39 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I'm not sure that I do.

ROBERT GUZZO: Well, if you -- were gonna go out. The fish are more in shore then. The summer flounder which are caught above their quotas. So, we're allowed 50 pounds in Connecticut once a day. I think it'd be too hard to enforce doin' it then. I think the wintertime, 'cause there's bigger quotas and longer times between. We'd have to have the officers down every day to check everybody worried about that runnin' around. I think this would be a good trial program durin' the winter to try to get our feet wet and see how it works from then.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Fair enough. Fair enough. All right. Thank you. Anyone else have questions for Mr. Guzzo? No? Okay.

ROBERT GUZZO: All right. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. I appreciate your patience and your testimony. Thank you.

So, is Representative D'Agostino here? I do not see him. Okay, so we're going to move on to -- again with Bill 266, it's -- Gary Yerman is the next person. Mr. Yerman, welcome.

GARY YERMAN: Good mornin', Senator Cohen, Representative Demicco. I'm here today -- also I would like to thank Senator Somers for bringin' this bill forward and also give thanks to Senator Miner and Senator Formica for all their help in the commercial fishin' industry. They've been really, really good for the fishermen in Connecticut. 40 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

I'm here today representin' a group of Connecticut commercial fishermen and to speak in favor of environmental Bill 226. This bill will help Connecticut fishermen in a number of ways. Possibly the most important is givin' the ability for Connecticut fishermen to land and unload their catches in Connecticut, while having licensed out- of-state fish aboard. They can then transit to other states for further unloading. We are hoping that passing this legislation will lead New York, Rhode Island to follow suit. This winter period from January 1 through April 30 will make it safer and more profitable for the fishermen. Currently, Connecticut fishermen can only have aboard whatever species of fish in which they are licensed for in the state they are unloading at. Example: A Connecticut fishing vessel has a good weather window for fishing two days offshore. The Connecticut limit is for 600 pounds of fluke every other week. So, it takes the vessel six to eight hours to travel to the fishing grounds. Once there, generally the vessel will fish for 24 to 36 hours to harvest fluke limit, along with other species needed to make a profitable trip, then if the weather hasn't turn sour, another six to eight hours home.

The fishing industry in conjunction with National Marine Fisheries Service has spent the last 30 years rebuilding fish stocks. With the way the regulations are now written, many stocks, fluke included, are considered rebuilt. Many regulations have not kept up with these changes. A very sad fact is the same vessel that has harvested the Connecticut legal limit of 600 pounds of fluke needs additional species to cover their expenses for the 41 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

boat and crew to make a profit. Say this same vessel has a New York fishin' license, where the limits are 700 pounds per trip, and a Rhode Island license, where the limits are 1500 pounds per trip, as written today -- is written today. We have explained this phenomena of catching, killing, and throwing dead fish overboard for years. Most people can't believe this is happening, but it is. When our vessels are required to take National Marine Fisheries Service observers out on the fishing trips, these discards are counted against the commercial fishing -- commercial fishing industry. This bill, and hopefully more to come, will be a step towards correcting this wrong procedure.

We would like the language changed where it is asking for 48 hours prior to undertaking a dual landing to one to three hours notice before landing catches during the winter period. We would suggest to allow the DEEP's discretion on this part of this bill. The current structure in Connecticut and New York seems to be enforceable and working. In a lot of cases, the vessels themselves are not able to predict changes in the weather, as would be required for a 48-hour notification. A 48-hour restrictions puts these boats captains' and crew members' lives in more jeopardy confined to this timeline. We applaud Heather Somers for sponsoring this bill and supporting Connecticut fishermen. I'm available for answering all questions. I'm here to represent Rob Morsch, he's the owner/captain of the fishing vessel, Mystic Way; my son, Scott, he's the captain/owner of the fishing vessel, Carley Grace; Jim Kennedy, he's the captain of the Samantha Brooke II; Rick Lofstad, he's the captain/owner of the All For Joy, Olivia Joan; Mike Tyler, owner/captain of 42 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the fishing vessel, Jeanette T., the George and Lila, and the Emma Maria; Doug Pogany, the fishing vessel, Kestrel; and Gary Rutty, owner/captain of the Get 'Er Done. REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Yerman. I do have a quick question for you.

GARY YERMAN: Certainly.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I didn't catch -- so, you are recommending that on line 18, we change that from 48 hours to what?

GARY YERMAN: One to three hours.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): One to three hours.

GARY YERMAN: And, the reason I say that is, right now, in New York State, when we're landin' in New York, we have a call-in system in the wintertime, where we call in one hour -- there's a call-in number. We call in an hour before we're going to land, either whatever New York port you're gonna land in, whether it be Montauk or Shinnecock or wherever. So, there's a one hour grace period, which puts them on notice. They also, when these boats are fishing in federal waters, they have a satellite tracking device aboard the vessel, so that the National Marine Fisheries Service, the different enforcement groups and whatnot are tracking these vessels. So, they know when they're -- they get notified when these boats are headed in from offshore. So, the 48-hour window wouldn't work very well. The one that's three hours, it seems to be working. We don't seem to have a lot of problems with it. I've been fishin' for 47 years, and it 43 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

seems like we're getting more streamlined. We're getting to be able to -- the fishermen that are left in the industry in Connecticut and surrounding states are working closer with their enforcement groups -- the DEEP. We're havin' more meetings. We're meeting two or three times a year. We're workin' out a lot of these problems, and that's why I'd like to see the language changed instead of it being a statute to have it go under regulatory authority, where we can work it out easier with DEP than comin' back to the legislature.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir.

GARY YERMAN: Okay. I --

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Oh, go ahead. Did you have something else?

GARY YERMAN: I just wanted to speak on -- I had a question on the shark legislation, but first, anything to do with 226?

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Yeah, let's do first things first. Oh, Representative MacLachlan, did you have a question?

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH): Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I’m curious, what kind of challenges will this bill alleviate for your industry?

GARY YERMAN: Challenges -- what it'll do, it'll allow the boats to be more effective harvesting the fluke quotas. In the southern states, there was hundreds of thousands of pounds of fluke quota that 44 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

didn't get harvested, and we're working as an industry where in the Northeast, we're working towards correcting that problem. But, what this'll do is let the boats, instead of -- there was just -- there was an accident a few weeks ago, where a boat, an older vessel, was comin' in from offshore fishing. The boat sank, and a couple of people drowned on it. That's part of the problem with what's happening now with the regulations and so on and so forth, where these boats can't act in a good business sense. They're forced into comin' and goin' to accommodate the regulations. This will start to change and make it more effective, where these boats can make a livin' instead of pushing the weather, instead of stayin' out, you know, offshore, in 10 to 15 foot seas. You know, they'll be able to keep the fish. And, conservation wise, it's absolutely criminal for the fishermen. It's the hardest thing -- I've been fishin' 47 years -- it's the hardest thing that we do is catching these fish, throwing them overboard dead because you have to stay on the fishing grounds to catch other species to try to make enough money to make it economically possible to make a living.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH): Thank you. I appreciate your responses.

GARY YERMAN: Sure.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Dubitsky.

45 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you could just clarify something for me. So you -- let's say at 600 pounds in Connecticut and 500 pounds in New York -- I'm just making up numbers -- so the fishing vessel could get 1100 pounds, stop in Connecticut first, drop off its 600, then go to New York and drop off its 500?

GARY YERMAN: That's correct.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): So, it couldn't unload the whole 1100 and truck 500 to New York.

GARY YERMAN: No. That's not the way -- that's not the -- to my knowledge that's not the intention. It's -- and it goes against the state's quotas, you know, if you stopped in --. This'll allow the fishin' vessels -- say our boat's comin' in from 75 miles offshore, and he's comin' by Montauk. This -- if New York adopts this same pilot program, the boat would be able to stop in Montauk on the way home, unload its 600 pounds of fish, and then transit on to Connecticut to unload their 600 pounds of fish. Without -- the way it's written right now if -- excuse me -- if you had both landings aboard, you'd get written up by New York DEC for having more -- it's a possession limit.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, thank you.

GARY YERMAN: Sure.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gucker. 46 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. GUCKER (138TH): So, if I get this straight, so what it's about is when you're out fishing and you, for example, catch more than the legal limit say in Connecticut, you can then bring that over to New York or to other states, or is this with different species that you catch?

GARY YERMAN: Well, the way it's written right now, it'd be basically you have to -- this is federal waters, and all fishing vessels, whether they're Connecticut, or New York, or Rhode Island, or Virginia, or wherever -- you have to have a Federal Fisheries Permit. You have to have a state license with the different qualified fish. Say one of our vessels would have to have a fluke permit, a black sea bass permit, a scup permit, a squid permit, a butterfish permit, bluefish, on and on it goes for all the species that swim in the ocean that they have qualified for with different moratoriums that they've had to qualify through different years' landings. So, on your federal permit, the feds control everything in federal waters. The state can only control the landings. Like, I could go out and put 50,000 pounds of fluke aboard my boat, and I could transit on to -- if I held a North Carolina fluke license -- then I could unload 15,000 pounds. And this happens. This happens all the time now. A vessel has federal license, North Carolina license, a Virginia license, a New Jersey license, New York license, a Connecticut license. They'll go out and put 30,000 pounds of fish aboard the boat. They'll transit on to North Carolina. They have a call-in system there, where they can call an hour ahead, tell them they have 30,000 pounds of fish aboard the boat, and they're going to unload 15,000 pounds in 47 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

North Carolina, then they're gonna transit on to Virginia, and they're gonna unload 6000 pounds in Virginia, then they're gonna transit on to another state, and so on and so forth. This isn't new -- a new idea that we've suddenly come up with. This is -- we're tryin' to just make Connecticut more efficient with this pilot. Is that it?

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gresko.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, you answered some of my question, but I wanted to project this out. If we pass this bill, would it be prompting Rhode Island and New York to have to pass similar legislation in order to have the dual landings, or just because Connecticut did it. I mean, we can't just pass the bill and then automatically assume that Rhode Island and New York are going to --

GARY YERMAN: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): No, no. So, like, does New York and Rhode Island have something similar to this now and we are catching up, or is this --?

GARY YERMAN: I talked to Justin Davis yesterday, gave him a copy of what my thoughts were, so that we're talking and thinking along the same lines, so that I'm not here talkin' to you fellas, ladies and gentleman, with somethin' that goes absolutely against the DEP. So, I forwarded this same statement on to him. It would allow -- it would allow the vessels that have New York and Rhode 48 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

Island licenses, they could land in Connecticut and then go to Rhode Island or then go back to New York. What we're tryin' to -- if they do come on board -- and when I talked to Justin, he said that they have been talkin' to their counterparts in Rhode Island and New York to try to get this legislation moved through in both those states.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): So, would this be reciprocal? In other words, if someone was licensed in Rhode Island, they'd be able to do the same thing here --

GARY YERMAN: Yes, I hope so.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): -- in Connecticut. Okay.

GARY YERMAN: Another thing I would like to also address, and there's a fella, Dan Malone, he's a commercial fisherman out of Stonington, he forwarded his thoughts to me. He fishes mainly -- he's what we call a day fisherman -- where they go out, harvest early in the mornin', they usually land the same day. In the summertime, he's very concerned that boats from Rhode Island or New York would come over in the summertime and eat up Connecticut's quota. Like in the wintertime, the -- Connecticut's quota is 600 pounds every other week. New York is 700 pounds per week. Rhode Island, if you have an aggregate Rhode Island license, right now it's 1500 pounds per week, and there's -- you know it's -- it changes. That's through January 1st through April 30th. After April 30th, we go into our summer period, and then the quota drops down to -- it'll probably be 75 to 100 pounds in Connecticut. That's a daily limit. You can't have -- and it's a possession limit -- so, whether or not a Rhode 49 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

Island boat or a New York boat would transit to Connecticut for 75 or 100 pounds of fluke. If they were fishing right outside of say Stonington or New London, they might come in, but chances are pretty good it's not gonna be economical for them to break up their fishing day to come in, off load, so personally, I don't think it's gonna affect the summertime fishery. But, if the language had to be -- and didn't change the language -- I would encourage to pass this if -- and that's one of the reasons that this should be put into the hands of the DEEP, so that if it does need to be changed it could be done regulatory instead of statutory. So, that's -- you know, hopefully that answers your question.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Well, you knew which direction I was going as far as eating up the stock, and also, I was wondering if the Federal Fishery Councils or the state could set up this pilot program themselves and wouldn't need the General Assembly to pass the legislation. Is that what you would prefer, based on what you just said?

GARY YERMAN: That's a tough question. I've been fishin' an awful long time, and I've been to a lot of fisheries councils, so on and so forth, on the federal level, state level, and then worked with the DEP. In a perfect world, I'd say yes, but I would also like to make sure that there's enough pressure put on the DEP that it's gonna happen.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Wilson.

50 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. WILSON (66TH): Thank you for coming today. So, I wanna understand, if you have a boat and you bring 600 into Connecticut, and then you bring whatever the number is into Rhode Island, if I remember right it's a higher number -- 700 was it?

GARY YERMAN: It depends on the license. Like I said, Rhode Island's a little bit different than Connecticut. They have what they call an aggregate license, which there's very few aggregate licensed, and you have to have certain criteria in which to qualify for that license. Right now, the aggregate license in Rhode Island, they can have up to 1500 pounds per week, and without that I think it's 100 pounds in Rhode Island right now.

REP. WILSON (66TH): Okay, and then New York was in between -- was that the 700 number I remember?

GARY YERMAN: Right now New York is 700 pounds.

REP. WILSON (66TH): So, Connecticut has the smallest allowance of all three of those states.

GARY YERMAN: Connecticut has one of the smallest allowances in the whole north -- the whole Eastern Seaboard.

REP. WILSON (66TH): Okay, and each time that you go into these docks to do the landings, are there fees that you pay to each of those states?

GARY YERMAN: Well, you buy a fishing license in the state, a non-resident commercial fishing license, which are -- I can tell you that a non-resident New 51 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

York State corporate fishing license runs about $140,000 dollars right now.

REP. WILSON (66TH): Okay, and when you go in and dock, are you always taking on fuel at all of these different locations?

GARY YERMAN: No, usually the majority of the time, the vessels have their home port, which in our case would either be Stonington or New London.

REP. WILSON (66TH): Okay. I'm just tryin' to get to the economic picture of this as well as the conservation picture, and how would this legislation help you other than the fewer trips out and back, if I understand it. Are there any other economic benefits to the industry?

GARY YERMAN: Well, if you make one trip -- say you go out fishing, you make one trip -- say you have a two day, and this happens a lot in the wintertime for smaller boats, 55-70 foot boats, you might get a two, possibly a three-day weather window, where you're gonna be able to go out and fish effectively. If you go out, and you only have a 24-hour window, and you get back in and then it's gonna blow a gale for -- like my son right now, he has a 55-foot boat, he's been home for five days waiting for a weather window. Probably, he'll leave tomorrow night, 11 o'clock tomorrow night, so that he transits out in the tail end of a gale. They'll be offshore fishing Sunday mornin'. They'll fish probably 24 hours or whatever. They'll get their fish aboard, and then there's again, Monday they're talkin' about gales again, another storm comin' across. So, he'll try to get his fish aboard and whatever other species he 52 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

can put aboard the boat. So, if he can have three states of landings on and come back in, that's double or triple their money, and they've only burned -- instead of burnin' 600 gallons of fuel in getting one landing and possibly not getting out again for three or four or five days, this will allow them to, you know --. This'll probably be, I would say, a 20-25 percent boost in the wintertime for most. And it's only -- we're not talkin' a huge fleet here -- Connecticut's fleet isn't a very big fleet that would take advantage of it. We're probably only talkin' 25-30 boats here. It isn't like there's hundreds or thousands of vessels that are operating under this, but we've been so regulated over the last 30 years, rebuilding fish stocks and so on and so forth.

And, the federal -- trying to work at a state level is complicated. You're law makers. You know how complicated it is on a state level. Well, it's more complicated on a federal level. So, you can imagine what we're faced against the state of Connecticut tryin' to get another 10 percent or 5 percent of fluke quota from the Mid-Atlantic area, which is down Virginia, North Carolina, New Jersey, so on and so forth. So, this would be a real -- you know, it would be a safety issue. Instead of the boats trying to turn around and go back out quick to, you know, get another 700 to stop in New York, so on and so forth. This has a lot of implications, a lot of indirect good implications.

REP. WILSON (66TH): Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

53 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. I believe Representative Michel has a question.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you Chair Demicco. Thank you for your testifying today. I'm still struggling to -- say a vessel's quota in this state is X, and the same vessel would have a quota of the same amount. Let's just state this for theoretical purposes. So, both have a quota of X. With a dual landing, the fishermen -- say that without the dual landing he would have 1.2 -- X times 1.2 on his vessel -- then without the dual landing he would dump the .2 dead fish back in the water. Where, with the two quotas put together, now you have X times 2 on that vessel, and I have -- like if I have a vessel, and I know I'm paying for the fuel and considering the weight, of course it's depending on the weight on the vessel, I wouldn't have a problem increasing the weight of fish on my vessel because it's gonna bring more profit and cover more of my expense. I mean that's beyond the point. So, with all logic, I see that this would encourage more fishing. And, since the '80s and '90s, and I'm looking at data here from the state sites, we -- we're still way under the numbers that we had in Long Island Sound or in federal waters or further out to sea, compared to the '80s and '90s, and I think the point for -- the point of conversation -- conservation and conversation -- is to bring back up the resources, and that would basically profit to fishing. So, I'm struggling with this. I'm struggling with the fact that it could potentially encourage more fishing when globally it's a huge issue. I'm not saying here is the same issue as somewhere else, but overall the ecosystem's balances are in a struggle -- apex species, keystone's 54 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

species are all bycatch, and so, I don't know. It's not to go against business, and again talking about conservation, how can you comment on this, if you wouldn't mind? Thank you.

GARY YERMAN: Sure. As a commercial fishermen, I was fishin' in the North Atlantic when we had foreign fishing fleets fishing off our shores. We had the Russians, the Poles, the Italians, the Japanese. We had all kinds of fishing pressure from outside countries and whatnot. We passed Kennedy- Saltonstall, passed -- they passed laws in which to close out that fishing pressure from outside countries, and at that time, the government encouraged the growth of the commercial fishing industry, not only in Connecticut but in the entire country. So, there was a lot of monies that were put into Capital Construction Funds, shoreside industries bein' built up, so on and so forth, to the point where the American fishing fleet probably had as much fishing pressure on the species as what they could regenerate. You take a pie, and you start slicing it up, and you put commercial fishing into it. Well, left to its own devices, the commercial fishing industry probably would've been half the size that it got built up to be if the government hadn't gotten involved. The government aren't good fishermen. They're probably not the best businessmen, but in all their wisdom thought that they were making it correct. So, we built this industry up, but at the same time, we put in nuclear power plants, we put in sewage treatment plants, we bulkheaded. We made all kinds of outside impacts in our oceans, in our estuary bodies and Long Island Sound, all the bays, everything. We all changed it. But, over the last 50 years, the fishin' industry 55 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

has been a huge visible target and they've been a whipping boy for a lot of these bills that they've been dropped at our feet. And the fishing industry by nature is pretty scattered -- it's because we're spread out along the whole coastline.

The fishing industry also has been working hand-in- hand with the National Marine Fisheries Service for the last 35 years to rebuild the stocks. There's been tremendous sacrifice and documentation, and I can appreciate that -- I can tell that you're, I don't know if it's a conservationist or environmentalist or all of the above -- most fishermen are as well. They don't wanna go and catch and kill fish. It kills a fisherman to take a 20-pound fluke that is probably worth $150 dollars in the fish market and throw it over the side of the boat, which isn't gonna change the quotas. It's not gonna do anything for what you're suggesting. All it's gonna do is kill that fish, and I think you were gone when I was explaining about the National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program. We have to take observers out on our vessels, and any and all of the fish that goes overboard is recorded, and it's held against the commercial fishing industry as bycatch. If we can start to pass good laws, we can start to, in house, clean up the mistakes that we've made. Okay?

REP. MICHEL (146TH): If I may, yeah? If we can still focus more on the question. Could it encourage more fishing?

GARY YERMAN: I don't see --

REP. MICHEL (146TH): With a dual landing? 56 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

GARY YERMAN: No. Well, possibly. I can't say no because I don't -- there's only so many boats and so many license and so much quota.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): But the quota, doesn't it enable the ships to fill up their boats to the utmost? I would imagine, since they have room to -- a dual landing.

GARY YERMAN: The dirty little secret is they're catching the fish and killing it and throwing it overboard dead now.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Right, but in the example of 20 percent waste versus doubling the fishing, I still see an issue in conservation. It's a lot more fish being caught, so -- It's okay, I mean, you did respond that it could potentially increase business. So, for me, that was what I was looking for -- I mean fishing, increase fishing. Thank you.

GARY YERMAN: You bet. REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions for Mr. Yerman? Mr. Yerman, thank you for your patience.

GARY YERMAN: Can I ask a question?

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Well --

GARY YERMAN: It's about a bill, the shark fins.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I think, in fairness, we have to let other people take their turn.

57 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

GARY YERMAN: Okay. No problem.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay.

GARY YERMAN: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. Thank you. So, the next person on the list is Richard Fuka. Did I say that properly? ["Yes" in background] Okay, Mr. Fuka, welcome.

RICHARD FUKA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, committee members. My name is Rich Fuka. I'm the president of the Rhode Island Fishermen's Alliance. I have to say, this is the first time I've been up to your Statehouse to testify in committee. You have a beautiful Statehouse. I got here early, so I gave myself a little tour. It is a beautiful Statehouse, and if you are ever in Rhode Island, I would highly recommend stopping in and seeing our Statehouse as well. But, having said that, I'd first like to thank Senator Somers for championing this bill. There's no sense in beating around the bush, we might as well get into the meat of a lot of good questions, especially Representative Michel had some environmental questions and concerns that I'd like to address. I will speak to the representative that asked a question about Rhode Island's question mark possible legislation action in the same direction.

So, if I may, I'll sort of address those concerns, and if anybody else has any other questions. We've covered the gamut of what this means to the fishing industry. It has, for such a small bill, it's very powerful, but there are some missing statements that 58 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

should be talked about if I could proceed Mr. Chairman.

To Representative Michel, your environmental concerns, the reason why we are not interested, meaning Rhode Island, I can only speak to the state of Rhode Island. I'm here on behalf of my members, which are quite a few members. They're all the fish houses. I represent an industry that's worth $1.2 billion dollars, multipliers applied. Not to lessen Connecticut's industry, but it's quite a strong industry for Rhode Island, and we respect its heritage as well as Connecticut's.

Rhode Island has an extremely in depth academia that spends a lot of time in net construction and bycatch issues, environmental impacts of nets on the bottom, those types of things. A lot, a lot of studying is done, a lot of time and effort, that's why our legislators, our governor are so confident in our Department of Environmental Management in bringing this exercise forward without creating a legislative action. There is continual dialogue between our DEM, the fishing community, you know, academia, and how these things are put together and how we work collaboratively between industry and the science that's created. So, you know, hopefully to address your environmental concerns, which I really appreciate, because everybody needs to understand the fish that these men harvest, these companies harvest, belong to the taxpayers. It's not -- they don’t belong to the fishermen. It belongs to all of us. So, we're all responsible for how the fish is harvested, how it's landed, and how these things are addressed. If you have any other concerns, Representative Michel, as far as the environmental 59 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

impacts, you specifically made mention of would this legislation perhaps increase bycatch issue. Um, no.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Mr. Fuka, are you done with your testimony because now we'll move on to questions?

RICHARD FUKA: I am. I am. I am.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay, fair enough. So, Representative Michel, please.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I'll try to keep it brief, Mr. Chair. [laughing] Thank you for your testifying and responding to my -- I didn't -- my question was not about more bycatch, just simply encourage more fishing practicing. Basically, if there's room on your ship, and you can actually dual land your fish, then you might be encouraged to stay a little longer and increase the catch and then -- and that is something that brings concern regarding conservation. And, I just wanted to respond also to a comment you made. I think the fish belong to the oceans.

RICHARD FUKA: Perhaps, to that point, we have typically daily enforcement interaction with the fishing community. So, vessels that would normally land on a daily basis or trip basis, they are always met by enforcement. We have a computerized system that Connecticut utilizes as well. It's called the SAFA system. Once the fish is unloaded from the boat, it's tracked in the fish houses. We have observer coverage that Mr. Yerman spoke of on board. Some of the times with the federally-licensed vessels, the checks and balances of catching or 60 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

holding too much is nonexistent. The penalties are too severe. This bill -- this exercise is so straightforward and so simple in regards to only, you've heard it before, X number of vessels have these permits, whether it's a Rhode Island boat that has a Connecticut permit or perhaps has a Connecticut and New York permit. Each one of those states has their own individual quota based on what the -- Go ahead, Representative.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, and I don't want to take up everybody's time with too many questions, but if we can keep it brief -- can it increase fishing?

RICHARD FUKA: No.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Okay. Thank you for your comment.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. I think Representative Gresko might have a question.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): My only question is did you finish answering the question that I had asked before?

RICHARD FUKA: About the legislation?

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Yeah. Our -- went off, and I didn't wanna cut you off.

RICHARD FUKA: Yeah, no, that's fine. I appreciate it. I spent a lot of time talking with my DEM lead biologist as well as your DEEP folks to bring this sort of dual thing together. New York has sorta 61 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

jumped into it. I have to say, it's been a very productive, spirited conversation. It was vetted quite extensively through enforcement agencies in all three states. Having said that, Rhode Island is extremely comfortable with the conclusions that are made by our Rhode Island DEM. They want no part of legislation. They like our director having the executive power, having a agency with extremely talented biologists making these decisions, and they don't see the need for the lawmakers to have to get involved. Thank you very much. Any other questions? [background talking]

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I think that's my job. Any other questions? [laughing] Okay, just a little levity there sir. Any other questions by committee members? No? Thank you, sir.

RICHARD FUKA: Well, I thank you guys very much for having me up here. I appreciate it.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you for your patience and your knowledge. Thank you. So, the next person is Mike Gambardella. Mr. Gambardella, welcome.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Okay, here we go. Better? Okay, thank you for havin' us here. My company, Gambardella Wholesale Fish, has been in the state of Connecticut over 100 years. I'm a third generation. I'm here mainly to support the boats on this bill, and it will be definitely much better for them. On my end of it, that we unload the boats in Stonington, and during bad weather, it will be a little more peaceful. We'll have fish and bein' able to leave my employees on to work. So, mainly I'm here in 100 percent support of the fishermen, 62 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

and I would love to see this bill being passed under 226. I'm a little nervous, so --

REP. DEMICCO (21st): We like succinct testimony, Mr. Gambardella. So, I appreciate that. [laughing] Thank you, sir.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: And, if I could, Senator Michel, I think the answer what you're looking for -- what you're askin' them is will it increase more guys doin' this fishing? Am I understanding that right, or -- okay?

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Representative, go ahead.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Only because I think I got the proper answer that what you're lookin' for or maybe you're not lookin' for, I don't know.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Let's let the representative ask you the question sir.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Chair. It seems that it's a reverse scenario, I'm being asked questions, [laughing] which I'm answering. But, to get back to you, the question is really regarding the same fishermen who would come to a landing without a full, you know, without his ship at full capacity. And, if you have room on your vessel to add catch, then at this point, if you can actually sell the catch, then why not increase the catch?

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Well, they won't because of the fines that are involved into it. I mean, if you're allowed 600 in Connecticut, like we are, and you come into the dock and drop off 600, and you're 63 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

allowed to have this 700 for New York -- let's say just the two states that are goin' all the way through -- you're not gonna come in with 2000 or 3000 on board. It's not gonna happen.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): So, if you're vessel before this -- let's say before this rule -- I'm sorry again, but just to be clear because I'm really trying to get it [laughing].

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: 'Cause once we hit the quota, it goes to zero, then we're not allowed --

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Yeah, but if a fish before that had 700 in Connecticut instead of 600, he would dump overboard 100 fish. We're clear on that.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Right.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): If the quota in Connecticut is 600, and 700 in New York, then why would that vessel not carry 1100 fish. And that's where I see the problem. That's where I see that --

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Why wouldn't he carry 1100?

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I think my time is up? [laughing]

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Okay. Why wouldn't he carry 1100? Well, he's allowed 1300, if I'm understandin' you.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Sorry, yep, 1300. You caught my bad math.

64 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: So, once he gets to that 1300, but at least he's got a window of weather bein' bad that he's able to do that, and there's less fuel, and definitely very dangerous. I seen a couple of fellas die on the water.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): But I think you answered my question. He can stay longer and fill his boat to the -- and make sure he's got [crosstalk] quotas.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Well, he's gonna have to stay longer like Gary said to put a little more fish on to make it feasible to come in to make a paycheck. So, why he's there -- that extra fish -- if we could do the dual states like we're tryin' to do, it would be much more feasible, less fish would be thrown overboard, and it would work. It definitely would work.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Again, I don't want this to seem like I'm going after business or -- or someone's money but --

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: No, no, I know that. I'm just -- You know, this is probably all new to you guys.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I'm just talking about conservation.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: We've been strugglin' for 30 years. You have no idea. I've been doin' this since -- I'm gonna be 65 -- I've been doin' it since [inaudible background talk] I'm talkin' about grammar school, bein' in a fish market in New Haven. My father and my grandfather had a fish market. So, I've been doin' this a lotta years. We're 65 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

strugglin' the last 30 years. I'm actually almost outta business indirectly, and this is a little daylight that could help us. And I really hope this little, little opportunity is a starting stone of something very good.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): And, with all due respect --

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: And we really do support -- we hope that you'll do this for us.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): And, with all due respect, sir, it might get tougher and tougher in the years to come with -- we need to consider the planet.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Oh, yeah, yeah. Well, I don't know how much more tougher it could be 'cause it's been a pretty rough 30 years. It's been rough, and I don't think I got 30 years more left myself. All right.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Anyone else on the committee have questions for Mr. Gambardella? Another lively Environment Committee hearing. Mr. Gambardella, thank you very much.

MIKE GAMBARDELLA: Thank you for havin' us. I appreciate it.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay, so, the next person on the list is Richard Burke. Is Mr. Burke here?

66 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

RICHARD BURKE: Welcome everybody. My name is Richard Burke, and I'm acquainted with the fishing industry through working as a -- being a volunteer at the Mystic Seaport, where I've been assigned to the fishing dragger, maintaining the fishing dragger Roann, which is a museum piece. So, I have a long time acquaintance with the fishing people, and it'd seem to me that this dual landing proposal would represent a significant benefit to them as well as it would be an improvement in the safety issue, improvement in the reduction of lost fish that are already dead, and an improvement in the reduction of fuel consumption. And, for those reasons, I would strongly urge the committee to accept the dual landing proposal or dual landing bill. That is my sole input.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Burke. We appreciate that. Do committee members have any questions for Mr. Burke? Well, thank you sir. We appreciate it. ["Thank you, ladies" in background] So, we are moving on to Senate Bill 234, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR CURBSIDE FOOD WASTE COLLECTION USED IN ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS. The first person signed up for 234 is Dan Martens. ["Martens" in the background] I apologize, Mr. Martens. Thank you , sir. Dan Martens, welcome.

DAN MARTENS: Thank you. Do I use -- we're on, okay, okay. Senator Cohen, Representative Demicco, Senator Kushner, Representative Gresko, Senator Minor, Representative Harding, distinguished members of the Environmental Committee, thank you very much for allowing me to make testimony on Bill 234, AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING A PILOT OF CURBSIDE FOOD SCRAP COLLECTION. I'm Dan Martens. I'm vice-president of 67 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

Novamont North America, and Novamont is a global leader in biopolymer research and manufacturing, headquartered in Novara, Italy, with North American headquarters in Shelton, Connecticut. Please support this bill for multi-town curbside collection of food scraps. This simple pilot program is of greater importance than it appears. It's a bioeconomic circular theory put into practice. This program will support sustainable energy, reduce carbon greenhouse emissions, amend soils, and advance green technology.

By treating food scraps not as trash but as a resource to replenish our soils via compost, we are simply acting as the Earth would do naturally. Milan, Italy's food scrap collection program exemplifies the gold standard. Their organics capture rate is 240 pounds per person per year, the highest in Europe with less than five percent contamination. The EU's two largest food waste digesters are it, and they produce more than -- they process more than 600,000 annual tons of food scraps each, coming from every curbside in compostable bags from 12 million people. That's about the size of four Connecticuts. The state of art in food scrap collection involves awareness, tools, commitments. Residents recycle food scraps with vented pails and compostable bags. Haulers collect these bags from curbside bags and AD composting plants deliver sustainable energy and soil amendments sold at a profit.

All parts of the food scrap collection program must be easy for participants. Scraps collected in a compostable bag with a vented pail do not smell or collect moisture. Households collect and transfer 68 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

scraps to curbside without mess, and haulers do not have to handle wet materials, and processers can combine all the feed stocks without problems. The Milan model was developed with government support and three main partners, Amsa, the waste management company, ESTA [phonetic] Foundation Research and Training Center, and Novamont.

Novamont has supported food scrap collection programs throughout the EU and the U.S., Italy, and notably the cities of Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Greater Boston, and Toronto. Novamont is a highly acclaimed, award-winning environmental company with sought-after expertise, and Novamont North America is headquartered in Connecticut since 2010.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Martens, for your testimony. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Martens? Representative Kennedy.

REP. KENNEDY (119TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Martens, for being here. My first question is, what happens if your bags end up in the ocean?

DAN MARTENS: Okay, well, just to clarify, no bioplastics industry sees compostable as an answer to litter or ocean debris, and that's a separate topic, but I just had to say it to be on the record. But, to directly answer your question, the material is denser than fresh water and even sea water and will sink to the bottom in about two or three months, where it will be eaten like microbes, just like any other organic material, and this would happen in about one to two years. 69 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. KENNEDY (119TH): Thank you. A followup Mr. Chairman, please? And, has this been verified by any third party or just Novamont?

DAN MARTENS: Well, it's based on research from the University of Crete in Greece and a recent 5 Gyres plastic ban list 2.0 report. If the bags are connected to food scrap collection, there's a very low rate that'll get into the water 'cause it has a purpose. And besides laboratory tests, it pretty much shows anywhere there's microbes in an organic medium, they will be digested.

REP. KENNEDY (119TH): Thank you Mr. Martens for being here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. I believe Representative Reyes has a question.

REP. REYES (75TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sir, thank you very much for your testimony, very intriguing. I have a few questions. The very first one is you talked about the contamination rate and you talked -- break it down a little bit more if you could. What is exactly included in that contamination rate, and why is it cycled out that way?

DAN MARTENS: Most contamination is household contamination, which would be characterized as trash, non-compostables, non-food scraps. When we have found through studies, several studies, we use a compostable bag and a vented pail, and people pay for the bag, they are more aware of collecting food scraps and using it for that sole purpose. So, a 70 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

big part of collecting food scraps is keeping down a contamination. Of course, it starts with awareness and education at the residence. You can't do a program, even if you were to use the Milan model, which is looked at worldwide, you still have to do all the steps, and it starts with making people aware of what is acceptable in food scrap collection and what is not.

REP. REYES (75TH): Thank you. And, as a followup, the Milan model that you have now that seems to be highly successful, what other European country has followed your model:

DAN MARTENS: Well, there's a -- well, there's several. I was just a -- I'll just explain -- we were just in New York City for the summit meeting of 13 US cities meeting to talk about food scraps, and it went from Hawaii to basically Maine. And we -- they endorsed the Rockefeller Foundation NRDC. We were there with 13 cities, including Baltimore, and they actually were putting up for five cities who qualified to go to Milan and do the Milan food waste and food scrap tour. So, they are basically the gold standard, and they're available, but other countries that have done it as well -- of course, Italy -- Italy only allows compostable produce bags and shopping bags, France, which only allows compostable produce bags, Belgium, Greece, Turkey. There's legislation for 2020 to go in effect for Spain and Austria, the state of California, Boston and localities. There's also legislation at the EU level to allow only compostable bags. So, there's quite a few.

71 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. REYES (75TH): Sir, if you'd just indulge me with one last question then. In the worst case scenario, what has been the longest time for anything to actually decompose?

DAN MARTENS: Okay, well you have -- when we're talking about compostable bags, they have to be BPI certified, not manufacturers words, not my words, or anyone else. They have to be certified by a third party body, which is going to international standards of compostability. So, by those standards, it says that for an item to compostable, it has to be gone in -- depending on the environment -- in three months. So really, that's the measure now. Those standards, the ASTM standards are basically the -- basically requires that material be nontoxic, have no heavy metals, must disintegrate, and must biodegrade in three months.

Now, there's three variations of this. There's the municipal composting, which is basically the three months, but there's also a home composting version, which has a longer time period because it works at a lower temperature, and then there's the soil biodegradation, but it's pretty much placed on the same standards -- just the timing is different.

REP. REYES (75TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. I believe Senator Cohen, my co-chair, has some questions for you Mr. Martens.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you for your testimony today. I have a little bit -- well, I have several 72 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

questions actually, and I just wanna be careful not to get too much into a plastic bag discussion because that certainly will have a hearing on that another day. But, I want to understand, because we are talking about anaerobic digesters, staring perhaps a pilot program, which then would in effect use some of these compostable bags as a result. Could you tell me a little bit about the term compostable bag. That includes paper, correct?

DAN MARTENS: Yeah, paper bags can be compostable. They have to be certified. I mean, it seems because they're paper, you think they're compostable, but they still need to be certified because some paper does not compost.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): So, I know some other countries -- I know Sweden uses -- they have anaerobic digesters and food waste pickup and often use a paper product, a paper bag product, for their food collection. Can you tell me about -- your product is, I hate to call it -- it's not plastic, although Senator Somers was telling us that plastic is a process and not the product. I don't know that to be true. I thought plastics were polymers, but I -- could you tell us a little bit more about the bag and then tell us what market share you have of this product. Are there other players in the market beyond Novamont that have a similar product to yours?

DAN MARTENS: Yes. Now, just to clarify, in the family of materials that exhibit the properties of thermoplasticity, there is one branch of that tree that's called polyolefins. So, polyolefins are what we would call the traditional plastics, which would 73 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

be polyethylene, polypropylene. So, thermoplasticity as a property became shortened to plastics, and it really applies to polyolefins because they're very durable. They can be used everywhere, but the problem is they last forever, you know, depending on -- Now, the branch that our products come from are thermoplasticity from the branch of biodegradables. Biodegradables by design are meant to be digested by microbes in the soil or their food. So, they're different in that regard. They're not even a family, the polyolefins, so they will not make bioplast -- they will not make microplastics -- they will not be around for years, just by design. So, did you want something on the chemical process of it, or is that enough of a --

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): No, that -- that helps me understand what and how your product sort of differentiates though because it is a different material than say the paper bags that are used in food waste composting.

DAN MARTENS: Yes, it's more closer to paper in its use and its properties than it is to what people would call traditional polyolefin plastics.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): So, would your hope be that you would have some sort of contract with these municipalities if they came on board to this pilot program?

DAN MARTENS: Yes, well just to continue with your question about Novamont. Novamont is the leading producer and manufacturer, a company started by a woman, Catia Bastioli, who got the first patents back in 1989 for destructuring starch, has over 100 74 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

patents, got the 2007 European Inventor of the Year Award for work in biopolymers. So, Novamont really is far ahead of most people. In Europe, they have about -- in Italy, of course, their home turf -- they have a 90 percent share. They have about 60 percent in Europe, primarily for use of shopping bags made from compostable material and produce bags. Here in the U.S., depending on the segment, the largest share we have is about a 70 percent of materials that are sold on the shelf. We have about 50 percent of the can liners. All this stuff is very estimate because we don't know exactly, and the numbers are very small, but of course there's other players, including, you know, the company BASF, which is the largest chemical company in the world. There's other smaller companies that are compounders that also make certified compostable products, and I'm sorry about I [crosstalk].

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): And those are products similar to yours in that they're the sort of structured starch material?

DAN MARTENS: Yes. It's based -- most of them are based on a compound called PBAP. Novamont had taken it to the nth degree. We have chemistry that makes some of these chemicals from plant source. It's a one-of-a-kind technology. We have the only plants like that in the world, so our P and B can be made from sugars. Our A can be made from the seeds from the thistle plant, which is a week which grows without water, without fertilizer, and we can get the starch from corn, the glycerol often comes from European rapeseed, and pretty much the state of the art now is pretty much like a 50 percent plant- based, and what we're recommending for this is a 40 75 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

percent, which is the state of the art now for Italy and for France. It's sorta like the EPA. When they started, they wanted to keep improving the -- you know, make a better mileage or better less emissions. So, originally, they said in the law they had to have 20 percent plant-based materials. They asked industry then to go to 30, and now it's at 40. So, and when you do that, you get a very nice carbon -- decarbonization impact by using plant materials versus using those come from fossil sources. Sorry. [laughing]

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): No, I appreciate that. You obviously have a lot of knowledge on the -- on the subject. I'm curious though about a couple of things. I'm curious about what happens to your product when it is used in food waste collection and going to the anaerobic digester. If you could speak to that a little bit -- what happens with that -- that bag.

DAN MARTENS: Sure.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): And also, just to circle back, with -- you know, would people be required to use your product in these pilot programs for municipal food waste pickup?

DAN MARTENS: Well, I think that would probably be determined. However, I'm very -- I'm pretty -- I wanna do it right, and I wanna do the state of the art. Like I said, I was at the cities -- the 13 cities -- and hearing all the cities across the country talking about how they're gonna do a study and they're gonna do a pilot, and I was just basically just itching to jump outta my skin, and I 76 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

would say just do it man. Like, just get it done. We gotta program that works, and I don't understand why Connecticut just can't do it the best way. We've got a direct line to Milan with Novamont being here, and why can't we be the state that does it just like Milan and be the -- be the gold standard for the U.S.A. I mean, so I'm sorry, I'm getting on a little sermonizing, but yes, I would say we should use a vented pail, and we should use the highest plant-based, breathable, home-compostable bag that we can get -- at least for the pilot because why start halfway for the pilot. We should do the best, and then we can measure our results and certainly have to adjust accordingly.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): And can you just tell me a little bit about the process once it gets to the anaerobic digester?

DAN MARTENS: Yes. Depending on the system, now we have international studies of this, but depending on the system -- for a dry system, which is not the system in Southington and is not a dairy system, those bags can go into the dry process digester and breaks down with the food scraps, but then they have to go into composting as a second phase.

For a wet system, the state of the art technology is the bags are brought in, and they are debagged with proprietary equipment that is available here from Italy, and then the bags and overs go directly to composting. Compostable bags, through research, are not a impactful source for biogas. You know, they're just so thin and they're so small, and do they make any? Yes. But are they significant? Really, no. So, really, their impact is in getting 77 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the food scraps from regular folks, not the green martyrs, which I consider myself as well, who will do anything to be -- to do the right environmental thing. But, if you wanna make a carbon impact that's really lasting, you have to let regular folks be able to have a clean, sanitary way to get food scraps out of the kitchen and then to a composter or a digester, and that's the value of our system.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): What happens if this bag were to be incinerated or burned?

DAN MARTENS: It would burn.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Okay. No implication for the environment.

DAN MARTENS: It would be the same as anything else. By standard, it's nontoxic. No heavy metals. It has a plant-based content, which can be from -- depending on the manufacturer -- maybe five percent up to state of the art of 50 percent plant based, based on the chemicals.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Representative Gucker. REP. GUCKER (138TH): Thank you for your testimony, and it sounds like an ambitious project. Myself, being an avid recycler with compost piles, I have enough land (I live in the woods) that we actually compost everything that by the time, the end of the month, I think our household trash is half of a white garbage bag. Everything else goes to the recycling center. My question is this. We have single-stream recycling going on in Connecticut now. I know there's some issues with contamination or 78 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

broken glass or things of that sort, and one thing that I learned myself listening to NPR one morning is if you go to the recycling center with your recyclables in a plastic bag, it kinda defeats the purpose. You kinda have to take it out of the bag, which is something that the public should know about. With this program, would they have -- they obviously wouldn't be able to single stream now. Would it still be picked up by the trash collector? Would they need a -- would they need to make separate trips? Would they have to come out in separate trucks? Would they have to -- because there's a lotta hesitation even now with some of the local trash haulers to even do the recycling that we have.

DAN MARTENS: Yes, you really would have to do something different. The schemes you can study throughout Europe. In Italy, they have these little -- through the city streets -- they have -- they look like little Tonka trucks, but they basically just go and pick up organics. In the U.K. and even in some parts of Canada, they actually are limiting trash pickup to just once a month or every 2 weeks, with organic pickups every week. And with recycling -- so you need like a two-bin truck -- the hauling piece of this is really important. It's a little different, like in Italy, where everything is like a public -- all the haulers are public, but it can be done. What they've found in the U.K. is basically when you take the food scraps out of the garbage, and you recycle the rest, there's not that much left. I know I do the same thing, and I'm kind of - - you know, we don't have all the kids at home anymore, but really you don't have that much, and I take it down to the transfer station with my wife on 79 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

a Saturday morning and have a cup of coffee, and it's kind of a fun date. It's not bad. [laughing] I'm a green martyr. I told you. Okay.

REP. GUCKER (138TH): So, if I can follow up -- I don't wanna know what your Valentine's Day was like, but -- [laughing] Do you perceive this maybe being an industry that somebody could get into to actually pick up this material and then maybe bring it to a digester or sell it to a digester, or could this be another job opportunity going down the road?

DAN MARTENS: Yes, there actually are statistics for green economy jobs that are tied to composting that are tied to collecting food scraps, and we can supply that data. But really, where states and legislations or municipalities have not made the commitment to full-blown food scrap collection programs, it's all done by small independent guys who are picking up food scraps, and they're listed - - you can see on the internet -- some of them ride bicycles through the city and pick up buckets. But yes, it's a cottage industry. However, if we're gonna make an impact, especially on global warming, decarbonization, it's gotta be like full time. It's gotta be hardcore, and that's gonna take commitments at higher levels. But yes, you gotta give credit to all the small guys who are out there collecting food scraps because in their heart they think it's the right thing to do.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY (85th): Thank you. Thank you for comin' in. I have two questions. Are these bags 80 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

intended to be used in grocery stores, given out at the checkout counter?

DAN MARTENS: Well, they can be, in the way that it really depends on the model and it depends on the structure. In Italy, 2012, they banned that the whole country -- I hate to use the word banned -- but they stopped allowing plastic takeout bags and only allowed compostable, and they charged a fee, which I think you have to do. So, when they did that, the overall bag usage cut by 50 percent. So, there are just less bags out there, and there's really too many at this point. They encouraged using reusable bags, and then the other bags that were used were used for food scrap collection, and in Italy, 100 percent of food scrap collection is with a compostable bag. So that's [cuts off].

REP. MUSHINSKY (85th): Okay, thank you. And, if they are used in the grocery store and a consumer carelessly discards them, instead of using them for composting, and they get eaten by a marine animal, then what happens? You know, one of the issues of the committee is that we're tryin' to keep plastics out of the gut of marine animals, so they don't slowly starve to death. So, how fast does your bag get digested in a marine animal?

DAN MARTENS: It's a -- I don't even like talkin' about that question because then you're sort of admitting that yes, it's good to dump stuff in the water because it's -- you know, hey, it's safe -- well, it's not, and it should never be encouraged and we don't. What we've done, without saying we've tested on animals, and we don't, but we did have a starch dog bone at one time that dogs ate and it 81 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

passed right through. So, I'm gonna just say that needs further study. We've done tests in our labs with stomach acid with our bags. Basically, our material is very fragile. It only has a shelf-life of one year. So, right after it's being used, it really starts breaking down. So, chewed or ingested by an animal, it would really break into little bits. It would never rope, and it would basically be passed through. It's a better alternative to something that I really didn't even wanna talk about, but I would -- the chances of our stuff getting into the marine environment are pretty low because, if you do it right and you put a fee on the bags, that cuts the bags down in half. Whatever's left is being used for a purpose, which is to collect food scraps, 'cause you're paying for it. So, there's an end to life for this material. So, we sponsor Mediterranean marine research, basically studying plastics in the environment of Novamont Italy, and our stuff just isn't there. And it's not there just because the numbers of plastic are so huge and we're so tiny. So, like statistically, we just can't be there. But, if it goes into the ocean, it will sink to the bottom and be eaten by microbes, just like any soil biodegradability, so.

REP. MUSHINSKY (85th): Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Are there any other questions for Mr. Martens? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martens. Thank you for your testimony.

DAN MARTENS: Okay. Thank you all very much for your considerations. 82 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): So, the next person is Steve Changaris. Is Mr. Changaris here? ["Yeah" in background] Oh, very good. Welcome.

STEVE CHANGARIS: Welcome Chairpeople and committee members. My name is Steve Changaris. I'm the Connecticut Chapter Director of the National Waste and Recycling Association, and we're here to talk about the organics bill. We support the pilot. We believe, you know, AD is okay, and we're tryin' to push in that direction to make some headway with changing up the disposal mix in the state. But, you know, as in anything, you've heard even in your testimony to now, we need to proceed cautiously and methodically, and we all wanna improve the system, but we don't wanna take three steps forward, four steps back. So, it's a measured approach to this. We sort of, after we said we support the bill, I'm gonna go ahead -- we've submitted written testimony, it's on the record. We want the committee to understand that what we're doing with organics today is sorta like what we did with recycling 35 years ago. It's at the very beginning stage, and we're rolling it out, and we're gonna try to, you know, continue to nurture it along and let it grow.

In the testimony, we also talk about a very important campaign. We want the U.S. EPA Program to make less food waste. You know, I did some work up in Massachusetts, and we spent a lot of time doing this kind of activity. And after we pushed out all the rules and regulations, then someone said, well why don't we study about not making food waste in the first place, which intrinsically makes more 83 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

sense, and that's why the EPA is pushing that narrative.

The other one is that in order to advance our understanding about this, the European model is the European model. Other countries do different things. This is America. The way we do stuff, we have an intergovernmental solid waste system with the state and the communities all involved, and one of the things that we'd really like to see done with the organics model pilot is some lifecycle analysis. This is very important, so that we really understand, you know, the environmental wins and the environmental -- the pros and cons kind of a thing. For those of you who are familiar with lifecycle analysis, it's a very rigorous tool that looks at all the economic impacts and rather environmental impacts and tries to, you know -- gives us the better tools so we understand it. It's fact-based policy, that kind of stuff. So, that's the kind of stuff that we're looking for. And, we do wanna -- we have a paragraph in there about just how difficult this is. Whether the communities that participate in the pilot with the oversight of the DEEP, whether they choose carts, whether they choose bags, whether they wanna send it to a digester and what the digester needs are, the trucking, the routing, you know, the level of participation in the community -- is it gonna be mandatory, is it gonna be permissive -- there's a whole slew of questions that have to be answered as you roll that program out, and those are not easy things.

And, you know, I'll just end, if it's all right, on the point about the recycling contamination. It's in the testimony. We've been at recycling for 35 84 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

years in this country, and we have contamination in the recycling bin, and we really wanna praise the DEEP for the work they've done with their what's in, what's out campaign. And, the sensitivities of anaerobic digesters and compost sites for having really high quality source-separated organics is there. You know, if we wanna get into the pre- processing of food waste and depackaging and cleaning it up, that's another thing, but I think outta the gate, we're really tryin' to get the highest source-separated material and that's very problematic when you have a broad horizontal participation at a community level. So, that's why I think the legislature chose to target the larger- quantity generators first, and that's the way the model has been pretty much rolled out in other venues in the Northeast here. So, that's what I've got for you. Thank you very much.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Changaris. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Changaris? So, my understanding is you support this, but you are especially appreciative that it's gonna be a pilot program to see how it works out. Did I catch all that properly?

STEVE CHANGARIS: Yeah, and particularly with the lifecycle analysis too, just to really make sure that we understand the benefits. Like, you know, we have a solid waste model that a lot of people look at and say we wanna change it, but you know, we often, as the trade association working for the industry, we want people to know that Connecticut's got a pretty good model. We take our waste, we send it to waste energy plants, we recover the energy from that. We have a recycling program, which is 85 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

about a 35 percent solution. We have diversion and volume reduction. So, we have a lot of good things going on in that space. We have no reason to believe that anaerobic digestion isn't gonna be another good one of those as we roll this out, but any of these systems, it takes time to develop and integrate and make sure that we do it properly without a lot of hiccups. And again, I think the recycling is, you know, a perfect example. No one foresaw the impact of the China sword and what that would do to roil the recycling markets. So, you know, we've got great infrastructure to collect it, and process it, and get it to market, but when the markets aren't there to consume the material, that's highly problematic. So, yes, we're very much in favor of it.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. Thank you. Representative Gucker has a question for you.

REP. GUCKER (138TH): Real quick, I'll just respond from the previous testimony. I'd asked this question about being able to pick up this material, I assume at curbsides. Does your industry have a problem with being able to separate these things out or provide the infrastructure to be able to move this from household to your facilities?

STEVE CHANGARIS: Yeah, the -- again, the -- it'll all depend on the pilot. To answer your question, no, it is not a problem. The problem is gonna be getting the generator to participate and set out the material properly, and there's gonna be another problem -- cost. You know, we have specialized collection equipment that, you know, in order to tip these pails that have putrescible organic matter in 86 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

it, they have to be really watertight and very specialized collection vehicles. And our routing efficiency is like anything, if we're picking up at every house, then your routing efficiency improves. If we've got one house and you've gotta go five more down the road, the routing efficiency, it degrades. So, the generator participation is gonna be huge in this, and then also the generator cooperation in terms of contamination. You know, again, we get a lot of contaminants in the recycling bin today, and that program's been up and runnin' for 35 years. The concerns about what goes in the organics pail, I think there's evidence that we do a lot of work cleaning up that organic material so that we can process it at compost sites or in anaerobic digesters currently. There's another step in there generally, that you have to clean it up so you can meet the spec of the digester. Or a lot of times, compost sites will reject a load because of contamination, and if it's rejected, then we still have to take it to the disposal site. So, yes, we can collect it very -- we can do that part of it.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Reyes.

REP. REYES (75TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sir, thank you very much for your testimony.

STEVE CHANGARIS: Thank you.

REP. REYES (75TH): In the -- you talked about a 35 percent ratio and then that being an average for the state. So, what happens is in your -- your large municipalities that collection rate is obviously a lot lower. I represent the city of Waterbury, and I 87 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

work with a gentleman by the name of CJ May, who's a pretty well known name in this industry.

STEVE CHANGARIS: Sure, I know CJ.

REP. REYES (75TH): And, he's worked very, very hard on the education piece, and I think a couple of people have already testified how important the education piece is. My question to you really revolves around the fact that -- if I recall the last numbers in my conversation with CJ -- it's 12 percent roughly, 12-15 percent for Waterbury. How long do you think this, in the education process, would a city like Waterbury be even -- even be able to get to 50 percent based on what we've seen?

STEVE CHANGARIS: Again, there's a whole offline discussion about the 12 percent recycling rate and how to improve that, and we should have that discussion. We're more than willing to do that. But again, this is the same thing about an organics program as you roll it out. If you -- you know, you just have to look at the experience that you've had with recycling and then try to determine whether or not Waterbury would be a good pilot program for this, you know, out of the gate. My suggestion and I think some of the people in the solid waste management world would suggest that Waterbury really oughta try to bring that rate up to the 20-25-30 percent rate, and then if you get those programs in place and you develop those community outreach mechanisms, then you can really focus maybe on the food waste segment. So, you know, it's problematic.

I can give you just a little scenario. I have a company that runs a digester up in Massachusetts, 88 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

and they use liquefied -- they take in liquid wastes, and they're very particular. There's a very serious chemistry about what goes on inside a digester. There's microbes. There's bugs. I think they call it the soup or the cake batter, and it's a very specialized process because they use that to make the gas. And, this one proprietor of this facility works very carefully prequalifying who brings the material in to them -- specificity, you know, this is a very long list, PhD level, MIT- types, and the generator said, no problem, we meet that spec. They went through this long deliberative process. Well, the first tanker came in, they funneled the material into the digester and killed all the bugs. The facility did an analysis of what went wrong. There was a trace chemical in there that was not [laughing] on the list of acceptable -- and the generator said to the proprietor, what -- that’s a problem -- you know, like, I mean, what did we just spend three months going through due diligence for you to say to me that it's not a problem. And that's a burden on the operator tryin' to -- and this guy's a good guy, he's making that facility work -- tryin' to divert and manage the material alternatively.

So, those are the realistic kind of problems that we have a lot of educating to do, ["Yes, we do" in the background] a lot of building bridges, a lot of information to go.

REP. REYES (75TH): Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any further questions for Mr. Changaris? Okay. 89 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

STEVE CHANGARIS: We appreciate your time.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. So, the next person is Louis Burch. Welcome, Mr. Burch.

LOUIS BURCH: Honorable Chairs, Vice-Chairs, and members of the Environment Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. My name is Louis Burch. I'm the Connecticut Program Director for Citizens Campaign for the Environment. I will keep my testimony -- you have my testimony, so I will summarize.

To start off, first of all, Citizens Campaign is strongly supportive of establishing a pilot program for curbside food waste diversion in the state of Connecticut. Currently, food waste accounts for approximately 23 percent of our statewide municipal solid waste stream, and there are more than five million Americans across 29 states that have access to curbside food waste composting, including New York City and over 20 municipalities in the state of Massachusetts. So, we strongly support this. This is a great way for us to help achieve our municipal solid waste reduction goals, to create jobs, and also to generate clean energy here in Connecticut. So, thumbs up. Thank you for raising this important issue, and we hope that you will move forward.

I would like to spend the remainder of my time talking about crumb rubber, artificial turf. We strongly support a prohibition on the installation of crumb rubber, artificial turf fields, and other surfaces that are constructed with crumb rubber. 90 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

You actually all -- some of the members are passing around a sample of what that rubber looks like suspended in water, and we know that crumb rubber is created from scrap tires. They contain heavy metals and known human carcinogens, and we know that children are disproportionately at risk to the health hazards related to those carcinogens. In addition to the health hazards, these fields can also act as a heat sink and create significant safety concerns for athletes, and so, between the health and public safety concerns, we're talking about a product that presents a significant liability for municipalities and for the states.

In addition to that, I think the high cost of these fields needs to be taken into consideration. A single one of these fields can cost over $1 million dollars, and the useful lifespan of these fields necessitates that they actually be replaced within just a few years of normal wear. For example, the town of Guilford, Guilford High School, had one of these fields in place. It cost over $1 million dollars to install, and after just over a year of regular use, they had to have the field replaced, and so, just to wrap up -- and granted that was under warranty and the firm that installed the field covered the cost, but it demonstrates that these things do break down over time and that a much more cost-effective approach would be natural grass for public spaces and playing fields.

And so, just a few things, artificial turf has been banned in Sweden, has been banned for use by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, has been banned by the Hartford City Council and the Westport RTM. We strongly support this bill, and we 91 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

urge that the committee expand the definition to capture playground surfaces and rubber mulch that are also constructed with recycled tire crumbs. So, I will conclude my comments there. I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm happy to take any questions that the committee may have at this time.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. I believe my co-chair has a question for you.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): I might know a thing or two about the Guilford situation. ["I think so" in the background] I was on the Guilford Board of Education when we approved that field, and that field was actually made with Envirofill, which is a silicone-coated material. Are you -- and just a little bit of background on that -- there was improper installation of the field, which is why it's been suspended, and they're trying to work that out right now as to replacement and what happened, but there was an expansion because of the under- material that was put in incorrectly.

LOUIS BURCH: The shock pad, I believe, there was problem.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Correct. So the freezing of ice, and melting of ice rather, really created a problem on the field. But are you -- would you like to see Envirofill banned as well, that material, and what are your thoughts on that product.

LOUIS BURCH: We don't have a position on that particular product. We have looked at it. I think there are some concerns. There have been some 92 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

demonstrated concerns about dust being created from the silica product that they use to coat those pellets with, but we need more science in that respect, and I don't have a position on that issue. What we do have is we do have a growing body of science that says that all the chemicals that go into crumb rubber fields are toxic, and there is now even adult athletes that are, you know, being documented -- you know, women's soccer players at the college level and at the professional level that have, you know, come down with different kinds of health issues, and that is being related to particularly goalies that spend the most amount of time on those fields. So, that's being -- you know -- there's connections that are being drawn to crumb rubber there. So that, to me, has really significant implications because we're not just talking about a children's health issue, but we're talking about a product that is -- that has been demonstrated to, you know, contribute to health impacts in adults as well. So, that much we do know, and the science that's available to us tells us that there's cause for concern and that it would be more prudent for the state to take a precautionary approach, especially when we're talking about investing significant amounts of taxpayer money into these type of fields.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Other questions? Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107th): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony.

LOUIS BURCH: Thank you.

93 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. HARDING (107th): My question is how do you see this precautionary piece of legislation. Would this be something that would be retroactive upon fields that have already been developed? Or would this be something moving forward?

LOUIS BURCH: I think a retroactive approach would be a little bit more aggressive than I think we would be comfortable advocating for at this time. There's obviously a lot of fields and a lot of money that needs to be spent addressing those fields. We would support a process towards addressing those, but I think that it's more important for us to stop investing in the construction of new artificial turf fields as soon as possible.

REP. HARDING (107th): So, you're saying just because of the applicability that your advocacy is more just going forward on future fields that we're investing in as opposed to ripping up fields that have been -- already been developed.

LOUIS BURCH: I mean we would absolutely advocate that towns, municipalities that have already installed these fields, school districts, take a look at the useful life of those fields and start making decisions internally about whether or not that's a good choice for their community. But that said, we have an opportunity here to halt, you know, the installation of these fields moving forward, and I think that's an opportunity we should absolutely take while we have it.

REP. HARDING (107th): Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

94 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

LOUIS BURCH: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Other questions? Representative Horn.

REP. HORN (64TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here today. I had a quick question to follow up on that. I mean, this seems -- the language in this bill seems to, you know -- it goes beyond installation of new fields. It talks about banning contracts for use.

LOUIS BURCH: The use of the fields.

REP. HORN (64TH): That seems to me pretty broad. Could you talk about what your aiming at with that?

LOUIS BURCH: I think that's something that the committee needs to take a closer look at. I'm not at this time, you know, equipped to talk about the practicality, you know what I mean, of putting in place a mandate to remove all of those fields. Obviously, the state is under pretty significant, you know, financial strain. There are some, you know, local challenges as well. So, I would urge you all to look at that issue and clarify, you know, the scope of this legislation, but at this time, that's about the extent of my position and what I'm prepared to advocate for.

REP. HORN (64TH): Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative O'Dea.

95 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thanks, Mr. Chairman. As someone who has spent thousands of hours on turf, coaching and playing with my kids, I find this bill problematic on a multitude of levels, but I guess my question to you would be what about the -- the town of Wilton has put in a mix of coconut fill, I suppose.

LOUIS BURCH: The product is referred to as Corkonut. Cork and coconut husk composite.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Cork and coconut husk["Yes" in background], which is environmentally friendly. Now I have, I'll bet you over the course of the 20 years I've coached thousands of kids, I probably have gallons of these black things from tires throughout my garage. So, I don’t have any problem gettin' rid of the tires, but the turf, with some environmental friendly material, I don't see the problem. What's the problem with that?

LOUIS BURCH: So, again, my comments are focused primarily on the artificial turf. You bring up a good question. That's something that the town of Hamden actually looked at. We were involved a few years back when Hamden was preparing to put in a second artificial turf field. There was a huge pushback from the community. We got involved. We had discussions with the Mayor's office, and based on the potential for health issues, they decided not to move forward with the artificial turf with the crumb rubber and to install a Corkonut field, similar to what you're talking about. At the time, we viewed that as a better alternative given that the town had already appropriated funds for the installation of this field and that there was 96 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

already a process underway to remove the old field. They were putting in an artificial turf field regardless. And so, at the time, our -- you know, our view was that that was a more environmentally acceptable alternative. That said, there are still concerns around the dust that that product creates, and there has not been extensive research and study into the potential that that creates for human health impact. So, more research is needed in this respect, I think, is the short answer that I'm -- version of what I'm tryin' say to you.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, you don't have a problem with the turf itself, it's the filler that you're concerned about. Correct? That's what I understand.

LOUIS BURCH: In general, we would prefer to advocate for natural grass fields wherever possible.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Do you know the cost of maintaining a natural grass field as opposed to the turf on an annual basis?

LOUIS BURCH: It varies depending on the project, but, you know, it can be done quite cost effectively. I mean, you can -- if you -- I would encourage legislators to look at the example of the Cheshire Public Works program because they actually have an organic system in place, and they've demonstrated over several years that it is quite cost effective to maintain a healthy grass field. And, when you compare that with the cost of an artificial turf field, you're talkin' about close to a million dollars for installation, and that doesn't even come close to -- you know, that doesn't even 97 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

cover, you know, taking the field apart and disposing of it once the useful lifespan has been met.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): No, no. I'm talking about the annual cost of maintaining a turf field. So, for example, let's suppose a turf field costs -- a football field costs roughly $600,000 to a million dollars depending on how much needs to be graded, drained. On an annual basis, the cost of upkeep on that is virtually zero versus the cost of pesticides, which you have to go organic on the pesticides -- how much they are -- and the cost to cut the grass and pay for that. Do you know the difference in the annual cost of maintaining a grass field with organic pesticides, organic treatments versus the cost of -- annual costs of the Astrofield.

LOUIS BURCH: I'm not prepared to give a good answer to that question. I don't have those figures in front of me, but what I will say is that it's debatable to say that there are no maintenance costs with an artificial turf field. Because, depending on how heavily that field is used, those crumb rubber pellets do need to be refilled.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I'm not talkin' about crumb rubber. Well, the Corkonut is what I'm talkin' about. Forget about the crumb rubber 'cause I think most communities are going away from the crumb rubber, and my garage is thankful of that -- my wife is, but I'm talking about the cost of maintaining a grass field. I will tell you, in my community, in New Canaan and Wilton, we've got now -- the turf fields that we have, I think there's three in Wilton 98 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

and four or five in New Canaan now, and the cost is dramatically less on an annual basis than the grass fields. The grass fields also we have found there's much more injuries. I don't know if you've done any studies on that -- if you're aware of any studies on the number of injuries, concussions on the grass fields versus the turf.

LOUIS BURCH: Comparative studies, not that I'm aware of, but there has been a good amount of information gathered on the potential health risks of turf fields. I mean, you have --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, not turf fields with -- Again, I don't wanna talk about the pellets. I wanna talk about the Corkonut.

LOUIS BURCH: Right, I understand.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): There have been no studies showing the Corkonut is dangerous. Am I correct?

LOUIS BURCH: Not that I'm aware of, but once again -- once again, I think it's also just equally as important to look at the potential health risks associated with those fields as well, and there is a hazard there, and so what we're asking --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): What's the hazard with turf fields with the Corkonut?

LOUIS BURCH: The issue is that, first of all, those fields need to be watered. They need to be maintained at a certain moisture just in order to avoid having dust production, especially during the hot summer months, and so the concern is that when 99 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

you have children running around these fields breathing very heavily, is that dust gonna create a problem -- that fine particular matter, is that gonna create a problem for them as they're breathing it in on a consistent basis. So, they have low- level constant exposure to cork and coconut fiber dust. We don't have a real good understanding as to what the long-term health implications of that are.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): How about baseball fields, where kids are playing on those where it's obviously very dusty, people running the bases. There's a lot more dust goin' up with that. Any studies whether it's worse than that?

LOUIS BURCH: Yeah, no. Again, that's something that needs to be looked at absolutely before we can sit here and say, yeah we support the use of that, but again, I think what we're tryin' to say is that we need to take a more precautionary approach with these kinds of products in general. We're here -- and respectfully, we're here to talk about crumb rubber, and so that's, if anything, I think, what needs to be really kept in focus.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay, in the bill --

LOUIS BURCH: We know there are health hazards associated with crumb rubber. Go ahead, sir, I’m sorry.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Are you testifying on 5249? ["I'm sorry" in the background]

LOUIS BURCH: The artificial turf ban, yes sir.

100 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I don't see the word rubber.

LOUIS BURCH: And so, one of my recommendations to the committee is to actually -- to focus this more specifically, as opposed to the term artificial turf, to focus the scope of this legislation more specifically on artificial turf and other surfaces made with crumb rubber or recycled tire crumb.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay, so your testimony is limited to -- I get it, okay --

LOUIS BURCH: That's what we're here to talk about today.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Your testimony is limited to artificial turf with rubber reused tires or products.

LOUIS BURCH: Yes, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay, it's not the Corkonut. You're not looking to ban all turf in the state?

LOUIS BURCH: No, I think that based on what we know, we can, you know, reasonably advocate for a ban on crumb rubber fields. We, again, haven't hammered out a good position on Corkonut and these kinda things, partially because I think more research and scientific study is needed.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Well, thank you. My daughter's a lacrosse goalie. She's spent more hours on this, both the rubber and the Corkonut than obviously I have. I will tell you, my understand and I'd like to know if you disagree, the number of concussions 101 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

is less with turf fields, both with football, well particularly with football, and, you know, I've had -- I used to coach youth football. We had a lot of injuries with rolled ankles, broken ankles on grass fields, and we virtually have none of those on the turf field 'cause you don't have the same problems. I'm wondering if you have any knowledge of any -- Grass fields are not the panacea, right?

LOUIS BURCH: I would like to respond to that because I think part of what we're saying is that there's a need for us in the state and in our municipalities to have a better system in place for maintaining those fields. The truth is is that if you're taking care of your field properly, that includes a certain level of aeration, that includes a certain amount of fertilization, these kinds of things, okay -- there are obviously fields that are in disrepair and there's a lot of horror stories that are coming out of that. I understand that -- with rolled ankles and concussions and this kind of thing -- but a properly maintained natural grass field, even with an organic program with no pesticides, can yield very good results. We know it because there's examples here in Connecticut, where you have a lush, perfectly healthy, natural grass field that does not pose potential cancer risks to our most vulnerable populations. And, I agree, I'm partially in this because my niece and my godson, my nephew, are both into youth sports, and they spend a lot of time on these fields. And so, again, they come home, and the stuff is in their socks and this kind of thing, and I've even heard from their parents that they've seen children putting this stuff in their mouth. That is a huge concern to us. That's a huge path -- potential pathway for 102 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

exposure, and right now, the state is spending millions of dollars over the course of multiple years to install these things. I think we have a significant potential long-term liability issue here, and we're kinda dancing around the issue by debating the safety of natural grass versus artificial turf. So, respectfully, you know --

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I'm not dancing around anything. What I'm telling you is -- I find that somewhat offensive.

LOUIS BURCH: I didn't mean to offend you, sir, by any means.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): No, but I'm not dancing around anything. I'm not arguing with you about my kids being faced with cancer exposure. You know, I find that offensive. What I'm saying is, AstroTurf or artificial turf with the Corkonut is much better than plain grass because you've gotta close down fields when it rains hard. Kids can't play. The artificial turf can handle way more traffic. You don't have to close down fields. We've got five lacrosse fields of grass at Saxe High School in New Canaan that are closed down, I would say 15-20 percent of the year because of weather and the amount of rain and water on it. The turf fields are never closed down because of the weather. So, you know, I'm not debating with you -- dancing -- about exposing our kids to cancer. I agree with you that's not something any of us wanna do, but banning all of artificial turf, I think is extreme and unnecessary, particularly in light of the alternatives that are out, but I appreciate your testimony. 103 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

LOUIS BURCH: Thank you, and I just once again wanna be clear. I respect you. You and I have had these kinda conversations. I was not referring to you or trying to say that you were dancing around the issue. I think, more generally, this issue has become a debate about what is better, which is obviously a very subjective term, between natural grass and artificial turf. And I would just argue that for the amount of money that we've invested in these fields over the last several years, that we could be investing that field into organic land care -- that money into organic land care, and that would go a long way to help address some of the challenges that we're dealing with natural grass fields with much less of a health risk involved.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I'm gonna jump in for one second. Representative, with all respect, we're not here to debate, and I appreciate your thoughtful questions, but you know, I think - I think we've kind of exhausted this, but I'm not gonna -- I won't interrupt. I will not preclude you from saying what you wanna say, but again, we're not here to -- we're gonna debate this issue at a future meeting, as you know, but please.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): No, I was just making sure that the testimony we heard is about the tires fillers and not the Corkonut, but I just respectfully disagree.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): I think what we'll have to do is take a look at the language around artificial turf. I appreciate you making note of that, and Representative O'Dea for pointing that out, but 104 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

there's other types of artificial turf, so we have to be very careful about the language that we use if we're specifically trying to prevent the use of the crumb tire rubber. So, we will take a look at that going forward. Representative Michel.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Senator Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Burch, for coming in. Thank you for all the good work you've been doing for years in conservation. You mentioned two bills. I'll get us away from this one for a second, although I don't recommend dancing ballet on turf fields. But, regarding compostable bags, what's your opinion on what happens with these bags if they get into the environment?

LOUIS BURCH: Can you ["Thank you sir" in the background] clarify the question?

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Yeah, regarding compostable bags.

LOUIS BURCH: Compostable bags, yes.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): What happens if they get into the environment -- because I know you're an expert in this, I mean.

LOUIS BURCH: Yeah, thank you. So, I wanna start by reiterating that we're fully in support of the food waste composting program as it's written. We think this is a great model and a great opportunity to expand food waste composting here in Connecticut. You're asking about compostable bags, which is just one piece of that. There's some question as to what happens when those bags get into the environment. I 105 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

think what's important to distinguish between is that, as it's written, this proposal would provide residents that are served by this program with a kit basically, a bin that comes with compostable bags for the purpose of food waste diversion. We think that's appropriate, and frankly those bags will more than likely not end up in the environment, so there may not be a concern in that respect.

I would question some of the previous speaker on this issue's statements with respect to what happens when those bags get into the water. There currently is no federal standard for compostability in a marine environment. And so, if Novamont or some other party has done research on that issue, I would encourage them to share that with this committee and with the public as well, but the ASTM D6400 standard is a very specific set of requirements, and it applies specifically to anaerobic -- compostability in an anaerobic digester. Okay, and so, that standard says something to the effect of -- and I may not have this exactly right, so I apologize if this is not 100 percent -- but something to the effect of bag material needs to break down within a period of about three months, three to four months, in a composting facility. That does not suggest that that material will break down if it ends up in a marine environment. It doesn't suggest it will break down if it ends up out in the open. And, I would argue that if it did break down, even if it did escape and it broke down within a period of three months, it doesn't necessarily do anything to avoid the impacts to aquatic wildlife if a turtle or if a bird or something along those lines ate that bag.

106 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

And so, I think what you're getting at is we support having compostable bags available for food waste composting, but we would not support making compostable bags available at the point of sale as a checkout bag. Those are two completely separate things, and especially when we don't have a food waste composting program in place for the whole state we don't think it's appropriate because that is the type of situation where we could conceivably see those bags getting out into the environment, and what happens when they escape into the environment is unclear.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you for clarifying that. I did work on turtle conservation directly, so I appreciate your comments. It seems like we need more research on some items, and I think, and I'll talk about the AstroTurf or the turf bill because I did propose that bill, and the idea is actually not going after products that we don't have any research for and that are made of more natural products. It's really targeting the plastic AstroTurfs and the fill-in that is toxic, and so it seems like there wasn't much research done on that, and it's impacted the health of students as well as adults that are using those fields. There's been some research showing that toxicity is coming out and being breathed in. So, this was kind of just to clarify the bill -- what kind of the direction it was going, and there's also questions regarding recycling of AstroTurfs because I know that in recycling you have to separate several plastics, and the grass blades, there's the base, the fill-in in some of the turfs. What's your position on -- I've read that in order to maintain those AstroTurfs, you actually do need some pesticides -- maybe not in all cases, and I'm 107 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

referring again to plastic-based AstroTurfs, but I've heard that. Can you maybe help with this?

LOUIS BURCH: I think what you're referring to is the fact that because you're talking about plastic grass, you don't have the natural microbial action that you would have in a natural grass field. And so, you can sweat on a grass field, you can spit, you can have ringworm on a grass field, this kind of thing. The risk of having that -- that bacteria transfer over to somebody else is minimized because there is natural microbes that are at work in that field. Those microbes don't exist in the natural grass field, and so there is a need for disinfectants or antimicrobial agents in that product, and so you are bringing a chemical exposure back into the mix. And, once again, we're not sitting here saying that exposure to that chemical will absolutely give a child cancer, but what we know about how that works is that those exposures over time contribute to a child's risk or any person's risk of developing any range of health problems.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Mr. Burch. Thank you for testifying today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you. Yes, Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for coming in. A couple of quick things. First off, with regard to the artificial turf, why is this a state issue and not a local issue? Why do the people in my district care if they install an AstroTurf field in Greenwich? 108 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

LOUIS BURCH: Partially because state funds are being bonded for the installation of these fields.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, and if they're not?

LOUIS BURCH: Well, I think once again what we are dealing with is almost the Wild West when it comes to regulation on this kind of issue. So, you all have an opportunity to pass legislation that I think would be a challenge for 169 individual municipalities to tackle on their own. Not to mention the fact that your children, especially if they're involved in sports activities, are going to be traveling around the state. And if, say for example somebody from the town of Westport feels comfortable or feels good about the fact that the town of Westport has banned artificial turf, doesn't -- doesn't guarantee that they're not going -- that the child is not going to be exposed when they go to another school district to play a game.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): So, the Wild West with regard to regulation, is it necessary for us to regulate everything?

LOUIS BURCH: No, but this is something that the federal government has not taken meaningful action on, and part of the problem that we have frankly is that there are lobbyists, industry lobbyists, very hard at work at all levels of government urging legislators not to take action, and again, advocating for the benefits of this product as for all the different reasons that we've already heard today, as some kind of alternative to natural grass fields. You all have an opportunity to address 109 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

something that is a potential health hazard for an entire generation of Connecticut residents.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Well, I can assure you that I've not been lobbied by the AstroTurf lobbying group.

LOUIS BURCH: There's a few different industries that are at work doing this, but -- okay.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): My other question is you had -- with regard to the plastic bags -- I had thought that one of the things that we were all kinda working towards was getting rid of the synthetic plastic at the grocery store and replacing that with something that's biodegradable. You seem to indicate that you would not support that, that you don't want those biodegradable bags in grocery stores. Can you explain why that is?

LOUIS BURCH: What we're working to do is we are working to change people's attitudes and behaviors around the practice of taking a free checkout bag from the -- from the grocery store. The best way that we have found to do that, based on our research and our experience from dozens of municipalities all over the country that have already taken action on this issue, is to eliminate plastic bags. It's what we call the second-generation bag ban. It's a ban on plastic with a charge on paper bags, and the reason that this works is because you actually -- you take away the most harmful thing, which is the plastic that's polluting our environment, and you put a financial disincentive on the paper bags that are still available to consumers. What we know that does is it produces a change in consumer behavior, 110 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

and you're actually going to start seeing people bringing their own bags, which is really the ultimate goal. This -- the whole conversation around plastic bags -- has evolved significantly over the last 10 years. It used to just be a focus on banning plastic. Westport banned the plastic bag back in 2007 or 2008, but since that time, we've learned a lot about consumer behavior. We've seen that there is a -- very frequently, if you just do something on plastic, you create a shift towards paper bags, and so you've effectively just replaced one single-use bag with another one. And, paper has its own challenges, particularly with respect to -- now that we're dealing with a solid waste and recycling crisis in our state, you know, and you could potentially, you know, create a shift where we now have heavier volumes of municipal solid waste because the paper actually weighs more than the plastic.

So, what we're doing is we're trying to create a scenario where we're changing consumer behaviors so that they don't come to expect that bag for free. To me, it's not a suitable excuse to say, well I use that bag to pick up my pet waste -- the shopping bag that is -- because that's not exactly what it's intended for. It's intended to carry your groceries, and it's the only consumer commodity that anyone expects to get for free anymore. What we're suggesting is that by offering a compostable bag at the point of checkout, you kind of defeat the purpose of the behavior change that we're trying to promote, if that makes sense.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Yeah, I thought the idea was to protect the environment with -- to prevent a non- 111 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

compostable, non-biodegradable from getting into the environment. I didn’t know that the goal was to change people's behavior. I thought we were trying to -- trying to protect the environment from something that was bad, as opposed to change the way people behave.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Representative, I just wanna interrupt because I knew that this was sort of the natural migration of this conversation, but I do wanna remind everybody that we will have a hearing on plastic bags, which is probably a more appropriate time to talk about whether or not they should be in grocery stores. I just wanna remind everybody that we are talking about Senate Bill 234, which is AN ACT ESTABLISHING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR CURBSIDE FOOD WASTE COLLECTION IN ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS. So, if we have questions specifically with regard to the plastic bags to be used, and you know, even when I was commenting I know it's sort of that it's tough because the line is dull there, right, but I just wanna be careful because we're getting into a grocery bag conversation, which is more, I believe, appropriate for a future hearing date.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you. No more questions for this person.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Any other questions? Yes, Representative Kennedy.

REP. KENNEDY (119TH): Thank you, Chairman Cohen. And, I don't wanna beat this to death either, but I just wanna follow up on Representative O'Dea, and thank you sir for your passion. Regarding the 112 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

artificial turf, I just really -- it's more of a comment than a question -- the window of a high school sports schedule is about that big, so when you're relying on a grass field, you may never see a softball season or a baseball season. So, I just wanted to say that. I think that's kinda what Representative O'Dea was getting at. I just had to comment on that. And also, I sat on a committee when we were examining the balance of a turf field versus a grass field, and one of the physicians that was on the panel testified that he sees more young athletes injuries from a grass field than a turf field. So, I just wanted to comment on that, but I do thank you for your passion, and I know we'll be addressing this and we're technically not on this bill, but I know we'll have more dialogue on it and I look forward to that dialogue. Thank you for coming today.

LOUIS BURCH: May I respond? Very briefly, I just wanna say that we recognize there are challenges, you know, dealing with, you know, safety issues around athletic fields. I'm not suggesting that this is an easy answer by any means, but I would say that this is part and parcel to a broader strategy that we have that again depends on the state providing adequate resources and information to help maintain natural grass fields that are healthy, that are effective. And, you know, again, these are all things that need to be looked at and flushed out better kind of on a town-by-town basis at times, but there are solutions, and our position is that these type of solutions don't necessitate like a chemical solution every time. So, thank you.

REP. KENNEDY (119TH): Thank you, sir. 113 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you. Okay, seeing no other questions. Thank you so much, Mr. Burch, for your testimony. Next up, we have Sam King, Blue Earth Compost. Welcome, Mr. King.

SAM KING: (Good now? Thanks.) Madam Chair, Vice- Chairs, and members of the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity today to submit testimony. My name is Sam King, and I'm from a company named Blue Earth Compost. We are a residential and commercial food scrap hauler. We specialize only in that, based out of here in Hartford. We have a mission of expanding composting here in the state, and to that end, we have diverted millions of pounds away from the incinerators and towards composting facilities over the past five years. We do this in order to benefit our soil, air, and water. So, that being said, I think it comes with no surprise that we are a big supporter of Senate Bill S234, which would establish the pilot program for curbside collection.

My fellow supporters have already outlined a multitude of the reasons why this would be a good reason to do, and so for this reason, I'm gonna keep my comments a little bit shorter on certain things. But, I do wanna bring up, you know -- I'm not gonna talk about, you know, our aging waste infrastructure. I don't wanna harp too much on what the environmental benefits are because I think they've already been well established, but quickly I -- quickly I do wanna bring up one thing. It is that it's a well accepted fact that nature doesn't create waste. Waste is a concept that we have created as humans, and that's why I put quotation marks around waste. The concept here is that the 114 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

waste of one product is the food for another. Such that the cherry stone is the fodder for soil to grow more cherries. I mention this because in this bill -- the bill in question seeks to return our state to a model that reflects these perfect processes of nature. Bill 234 would build the foundational infrastructure that diverts this valuable resource that we call waste away from being burned unnecessarily and toward its intended use -- being returned to the soil to grow more food. That it would be creating renewable energy in the process adds a cherry on top.

The solution I would like to highlight, in addition to the environmental and the others that we've already talked about, is the development opportunities that it presents. If this bill is implemented, it will mean more jobs and capital goods investments in this burgeoning industry. I am admittedly not an expert in development economics, but I can speak with authority from the position of a small business in this industry. We are creating good paying jobs with dignity for our community, and the opportunities put on the table would allow a business like ours to continue in this trend. Our company exists as a litmus test of the public interest in community-scale composting. With a payment-based platform, we have been able to enlist hundreds of households in the Hartford area. The rate of growth has accelerated as of late. This leads me to believe that cities and towns in the state are ready to make the switch towards source separation of organics.

In absence of municipal programs, the private sector can and will do its best to meet this demand. I 115 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

fear though that our state will never reach the full benefits of community composting without the creation of programs like this. So, please move forward with this bill. Thank you so much for your time.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you so much, Mr. King. Did you submit testimony? I didn't see it. SAM KING: I have not yet. I have a couple of paper copies I brought with me, but I can also do that I'm sure.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): I would encourage you to submit it electronically, via email. Any questions from the committee members? Yes, Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for comin' in. Do you -- where do you collect waste, food waste?

SAM KING: So, we collect residentially out of about 14 towns that are in the greater Hartford area. We collect commercially across most of the state, centering around the major corridors, like 84, 91, 95, such as that.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): And what do you do with the waste?

SAM KING: The majority of it goes to Quantum Biopower in Southington, who's been a great partner of ours, but we also work with more traditional composters, such as the one in Ellington called Harvest New England, which is more of a Windrow- style composter, so it's just large amounts. 116 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Where was the first one you said?

SAM KING: Southington. It's the one that is -- is highlighted in the bill language.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Is it your anticipation that if a pilot program were established that that's where the waste would go?

SAM KING: It is actually explicit in the language that it would go there.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Is it your desire to see other facilities open around the state?

SAM KING: We do, yeah. We much -- we know that the problem is grand. There's over 500,000 tons of food is wasted every year in this state, according to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and Quantum Biopower in Southington can't -- can only handle about 40,000 tons a year, so it's about -- you know, there's room for more than ten-fold growth in this area.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Are you familiar with any of the on-farm composting facilities that are either operating or planned in the state?

SAM KING: I have had conversations with people who are interested, mostly because they're interested in sourcing material from us. I don't believe there are any on farms that are operating at this time in Connecticut, but there are a multitude in Massachusetts and throughout the country. 117 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): I think there is one that's already started.

SAM KING: Is there one? Is it up in the --?

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): And I know there's a few that are currently planned. Are you involved in the science of the digesting or just the collection?

SAM KING: I couldn't speak with any kind of authority on biochemistry.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. So, you wouldn't know if it's possible to combine the animal waste and the food waste?

SAM KING: I do know that that is a possibility, yes.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. All right. Thank you.

SAM KING: You're welcome. Thank you. If I might, there was a question earlier as to whether there is a pallet for this kind of thing -- whether towns would sign on to such a program, and we know from experience that West Hartford did run a pilot program last year, where they ran it for three months. So, there's a precedent there, but also, I would just say that, you know, we have worked with a number of towns, both informally and formally, on kind of talking about this, and I know that there is interest in making this kind of thing happen.

118 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Could you -- could you expand upon the West Hartford pilot a little bit? Was -- it just stopped? You know, what happened with it?

SAM KING: Certainly, yes. It was exploratory. They were trying to find out, kind of, what kind of kinks that they would have to expect. It was bankrolled by -- maybe bankrolled isn't the right term -- but it was funded by Covanta, who is I guess still currently the partner over at the MIRA waste facility and Quantum Biopower and Paines Recycling and Waste, and they wanted to know just basically like what technologies are best. They were tryin' to get ahead of the curve, see what kind of participation they could expect on the town level. So, they ran it for three months. I know that they were collecting somewhere around a ton a week, so they were just running one small route. I think they had about 125 participating homes. REP. DEMICCO (21st): Well, I'll follow up with that. So, it ended for what reason?

SAM KING: It was just a pilot.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): So, the time had run out, is that it?

SAM KING: Yeah, it was scheduled to run, I believe, October to January.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Was it considered to be successful, or is that too subjective a question?

SAM KING: Yeah, I guess it would be by what standards that you would be measuring it by. I think that they did learn a lot through the process, 119 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

and again, as a company, we weren't a part of that process, so I can only speak as an outsider. But, I mean, gauging based on participation, then you can say it was a success.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. King? Okay. We thank you very much.

SAM KING: Thank you for your time. Have a great rest of the day.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you for your patience and your testimony. Thank you. So, we move on now to House Bill 5249, which is AN ACT PROHIBITING THE PURCHASE OR USE OF ARTIFICIAL TURF BY THE STATE AND MUNICIPALITIES, and the first person signed up is Fred Balsamo. Mr. Balsamo, welcome and thanks for your patience.

FRED BALSAMO: Thank you. Good afternoon Senator Cohen, Representative Demicco, Senator Miner, Representative Harding, and the distinguished members of the environmental committee. My name is Fred Balsamo, and I'm the Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Athletic Directors, representing every high school and middle school in the state that houses an athletic program. I submitted a very lengthy testimony, so rather than reading it, I would just ask that you folks, and I’m sure you will, take the time to go through it. I just wanna emphasize four points.

One is the extensive use and multipurpose use that these fields create. Since synthetic turfs have gone into the state, our program -- amount of our 120 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

programming has grown exponentially. As mentioned by some of the members on this committee, there was always a problem with grass fields and trying to get the amount of use out of them and that's created a problem, not only in the schools but a lot of these turf fields are extended to community use and youth programs. So, they're bein' used tremendously and much more than a grass field.

The injury rate -- there is conclusive evidence that grass fields, if not properly maintained, have a higher risk of injury. I testified in this chamber alone about concussions a few years ago. Grass fields have a compaction issue. Very few schools have the time to shut fields down, to aerate fields, to keep them fluffy and healthy and -- so, they're constantly worn and used, and we have a compaction problem. So, most grass fields, if you did a compaction test, which is required of a turf field, will register a lot harder on a fall to the ground than a turf field.

Physical impact -- these fields, there is documentation as to what it costs. It costs nearly $100,000 dollars a year, almost $96,000-$97,000 dollars to maintain a grass field properly. That takes into account aeration, mowing, lining it, fertilization, everything that has to be done to a grass field to keep it properly maintained and safe. The longevity of a turf field is somewhere between 12-14 years. I commend Madam Chairman for correcting the Guilford situation. That was a warranty issue and not a worn-out issue, as what was portrayed. These fields have tremendous longevity, and when you do the math, they are much cheaper in 121 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the long run. They do have a much greater initial outlet.

And the last thing that I wanna really talk about is the research. The gentleman that testified earlier about this bill provided a lot of misinformation, and a lot of the information he gave, he used the word potential injury and he talked in generalizations. My testimony provides you with documentation and research done by known toxicologists, Lauren Green from MIT, Michael Peterson, who is a leading -- or renown toxicology - - and has published a thing about what's -- what's - - you know what's dangerous about synthetic turf and crumb rubber, and I would urge you folks to look at those things.

And, I guess the last thing -- one of the other things he said is Hartford, the city of Hartford banned -- Hartford is redoing Dillon Stadium and they just appropriated money in November to put turf down, and Yale Bowl is being done in turf as we speak. So, we're about kids, and we would not be putting kids in harm's way if we felt these fields were unsafe.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Balsamo. Do any committee members have questions? I believe Senator Cohen does.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Hi, thank you so much for your testimony. You know, I appreciate you bringing up the Guilford situation again, and as you know we used Envirofill and that -- and Representative O'Dea pointed out that there's the coconut husk type turf. What are your feelings on these new types of turf, 122 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

and do you think that we could effectively terminate the use of the tire -- the tire crumb -- and move to some of these alternative measures and still have the same impact, positive impact, to athletics?

FRED BALSAMO: I think if you find out why a lot of schools are moving to -- you know there's also ground up walnut shells -- I mean there's a lot of other variations to use as the infill of these fields. A lot of schools are going to these alternatives because of pressure from environmentalists, but in addition to it, the one drawback that the crumb rubber has -- and it's not environmentally -- it's the flyaway. As Representative O'Dea mentioned, he has a lot in his garage. It clings to clothing. It does come up into the face of young people, but it hasn't produced the health risks.

You know, the mention of goalies being at risk. There is no -- absolutely no documentation or research that I've been able to find. The only thing that was done that created this whole scare was there was a scientist at Yale that did a -- did some project. He couldn't get his paper researched. He extracted the rubber. He soaked it in formaldehyde. He then injected it into rats, and it caused cancer. And again, I urge you to look at Mike Peterson's video on YouTube that I provided to you that dispels this whole thing that was done at Yale, and that gentleman started this whole scare. He's not even a toxicologist. So, his method of extraction was not something toxicologists would do. And so this, this -- it was on NBC News, and when it started, it just created -- that whole one thing went through the country and this whole crumb rubber 123 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

scare. I have not been able to find any legitimate documentation that shows crumb rubber, unless you swallow it in gulps or extract it with a chemical and inject it, is gonna cause any danger to any child.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you, and I do know -- you know, I also sit on the Children's Committee, and there's a bill there as well with respect to crumb rubber. I think a lot of districts, municipalities sort of take the better safe than sorry approach to this because there are sports where, you know, lacrosse goalies, for example, as Representative O'Dea's daughter participates in, that probably spend a good portion of their lives on these fields and may in fact ingest some or have the tire crumb come in contact with a blood stream because of cuts or scrapes on the field, and so I know that there's been concern over that and that maybe there is ingestion in some indirect manner. And, I just, I'm really wondering about the viability of these other materials and if there would be any sort of problem. Is there a financial hardship associated with going to these other types of artificial turf, as opposed to the crumb tire rubber for municipalities, and you know, if safety is in the best interest, if we can just as well use these environmentally friendly products that we know don't pose a risk to individuals' health, then why wouldn't we move in that direction?

FRED BALSAMO: It would certainly be a cautious way to approach the installation of a new field. An existing field -- again, there'd be a physical hardship to try and remove the crumb rubber and reinstall it unless it was through a maintenance 124 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

program over time. But again, I think your finding -- or you'll see that most new fields that are going in -- I don't even know the percentage, but probably more than not are using the alternative to crumb rubber moving forward. I think the industry is doing that on its own without legislation.

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): So, perhaps this legislation wouldn't -- I mean, it wouldn't be such a terrible thing if we weren't banning all artificial turf. You know, if we made sure that the wording specified crumb tire rubber, is that --?

FRED BALSAMO: You know, I've actually visited a plant. If you see the process these tires go through. I mean, they are given baths, and baths, and baths, and the metal's extracted, and again the amount of rubber that is ingested -- you know, I've had a synthetic field as an athletic director. No one has ever complained about swallowing rubber. You'd have to pick it up and put it in your mouth. It just -- you know, it stays low to the ground. Flyaway, when we talk about flyaway, if you've ever seen a professional game on TV, somebody will slide and you'll see rubber come up, but it maybe comes up three or four or five inches out of the grass and then goes right back down. Most of our games are played, you know, on your feet. You're not laying down on the ground. So, can someone ingest it? Yes. If someone -- and even if you ingest it, I don't -- there's no research that shows it's harmful. Again, the only -- and it wasn't even a research project -- the gentleman extracted it using formaldehyde. I urge you to watch the Mike Peterson video on crumb rubber. He's a known, a renowned 125 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

toxicologist, and he did this video specifically about that Yale study, so.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just real quick, just expound if you could on the multi- use ability of the turf versus a grass field season- to-season and midseason. In other words, how many more hours can you get out of a turf field than you can out of the grass field, if you know.

FRAN BALSAMO: If you had lights, you could use a turf field 24 hours, and again the longevity 12-14 years. Turf fields do not wear out. You can't wear out a turf field. It will be degrade over time by the sunlight. That's where they will start breaking down, and they show fraying in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth year. You take a small town that has limited space, and you have one turf field. So, in the fall, you have football, field hockey, boys and girls soccer, practices and games. You have youth on it all weekend. You have every phys ed class out there. Come springtime, you have baseball and softball practices. When you can't get on a muddy or a grass field because of the nature of the sport, you're on the turf field practicing. Again, phys ed, you know, all spring. Lacrosse, boys and girls lacrosse. The multi -- and then all summer by the Park and Rec Department, and these fields are not really limited to the high school. They're community fields. The amount of children that are using these fields has just, you know, exploded, and we wouldn't do this unless we felt they were safe. But, schools -- just the 126 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

multipurpose use of these things -- and graduations. You know, I used to set up for graduation, and if it rained the day before or whatever and we were muddy, we had to go inside. You're pretty much using this whether it rains or not. The removal of snow. If you have a light snow, you can actually plow these fields.

They're a lot more practical. And again, in part of my testimony, I've included a research result from your Connecticut Health Department saying they're not dangerous. So, until somebody does -- I know the EPA is supposed to be doin' -- and the EPA has not come out with anything sayin' anything harmful yet, but until that's done I think we need to be careful when people say they're potential hazard -- hazardous. I mean, we need to be cautious, but we need not to go to the extreme of forbidding these fields and the forbidding of especially use. I mean, that's preposterous.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, my daughter's a goalie, a lacrosse goalie. In fact, she's going to be playing next year in college (we're excited), but just if you could just expound on on a grass field, the way the goalie area turns into mud, and versus a turf field it doesn't, and what associated injuries happen when you've got a surface that's slick like that.

FRED BALSAMO: Again, in my testimony, I talk about wear patterns. And again, if you're gonna maintain a grass field properly, it's close to $100,000 dollars a year. Now when that -- when you say maintain properly, it means you gotta have an alternative practice field. So, if you are 127 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

practicing and playing on the same grass field, you're gonna have a wear pattern. So that goalie stays in one location most of the time. That area is gonna create a dirt bowl, as we call it, where there's no grass that's gonna grow. You can't get grass to grow there, it's just -- if you plant it or you sod it, it's gonna die. Now that becomes a bowl. When it rains, water sits there. Water becomes mud. Now you're playing in mud, and then you're stepping out of a hole into the grass if you have to maneuver. The trueness of a synthetic field. It's flat. It's perfect. You can't twist an ankle -- I won't say you can't, you can do that no matter what -- but you have less likelihood of injuring a lower extremity injury -- and I included a Penn State research project that shows that as well. REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. I believe, Representative Michel, you have a question.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you Mr. Chair. Sir, thank you for testifying first of all. Are you aware that the New York State Consumer Product Safety Commission found arsenic and cadmium with the crumble?

FRED BALSAMO: Again, how was it extracted?

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I don't think that -- I mean, are you aware of that research?

FRED BALSAMO: No, I'm not.

128 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Okay. Thank you for that. And then, just bear with me, I've read also in some -- so, I'm careful with what I read obviously -- but when it gets 100 degrees temperature, some fields -- and let's remember yes, they require less maintenance, they are made of plastic and just like plastic bottles, plastic lasts very long -- but in temperatures for the turf itself have been recorded at over 100 degrees. Do you think that would have any potential toxicity for players, for kids or adults playing on the field during those temperatures in the summer?

FRED BALSAMO: Not toxicity, but it does -- there is a potential for there to be a -- turf field is somewhat hotter by a few degrees than a grass field. There's no question. But precautions should be taken. Again, we have -- we follow Korey Stringer Heat Guidelines and if, you know, there's a certain temperature on a field, you don't use the field. But, you know, fields because of -- they're not -- there's not a natural grass absorbing the heat, it does bounce off and it does create a heat, but I'm not aware of anything that's -- that's not gonna create a toxicology issue.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I'll end it briefly with a comment, just by saying that just like we close natural fields during the winter or rainy weather, I have concerns about using artificial turf in hot temperature. And, by the way, I am originally French, I learned how to play soccer in France on regular turf. I did fall, and I did scrape my knees and other areas, and I learned how to play soccer that way, and I was goalie. So, just a comment, and I appreciate your time. Thank you. 129 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

FRED BALSAMO: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gresko.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Just one quick question. Based on your testimony about a small town using the artificial turf quite extensively through the course of the week and multiple teams and all during the year, how do you clean it? I mean, sweat, blood --

FRED BALSAMO: It needs little or no maintenance. It is recommended it is disinfected.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): So, how do you clean it? What do you clean it --

FRED BALSAMO: Just a regular fertilizer sprayer and spray it. You know, they --

REP. GRESKO (121ST): With a bottle, you go around like this or you get a machine or --?

FRED BALSAMO: No, no. An industrial one that's, you know, on the back of a tractor or whatever, and they can spray it and disinfect it. There's also something that you can do to prevent cling, and that's to put fabric softener down on it. Again, just different methods of doing it, but they should be disinfected, and they do need to be swept. There is a nylon carpet sweeper that's usually about six feet. It's like a broom. It lifts up the rubber, puts it back down, and that should be done -- you know, not daily or weekly -- but it should be done periodically. 130 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Was that calculated into your estimation of what it costs to --?

FRED BALSAMO: Yes, yes.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Okay.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions for Mr. Balsamo? No. Okay. Thank you, sir.

FRED BALSAMO: One last thing. Nobody mentioned this, but when you talk about -- if you do move to the elimination of crumb rubber in some aspect, keep in mind, just about every track in Connecticut is built with crumb rubber. Now that's the base. It's unlike a field, which is open. The tracks are sealed. But, I would caution you that, I mean, again, you know, cinder tracks were dangerous and actually should've been banned a long time ago, and there are no more cinder tracks. Everything is synthetic now, so just be aware of that as well please.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time and your testimony. So, the next person to testify is Jeff Cordulack. Mr. Cordulack, welcome.

JEFF CORDULACK: My name is Jeff Cordulack. I'm here to be a resource for you all today. I am a Connecticut resident. I've spent my whole career working in nature conservation and helping people get more environmentally friendly and sustainable. One of my expertises is organic turf management for 131 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

all sorts of purposes, be it schools or universities, sports fields. Also, I have expertise in organic food and all those things. So, please feel free to ask me anything you'd like. I could respond to many of the questions before, and I'd like to clarify some of the confusion, at your convenience. I would like to say that I support this bill that restricts the use of state funds on these fields, and it's a pretty simple decision.

Now, I've spent well over a decade saying that we shouldn't have these fields for all sorts of reasons with crumb rubber. I'm here to tell you today you shouldn't have those fields because there are all those concerns plus it's a terrible financial investment. The answer to how much is it to take care of an organic field or a natural field and a turf field is laid out in many studies. Now, I'd like to see the testimony for any of the other speakers, but I can tell you that you can manage real grass fields with extensive playing time for between $2 and $6 dollars a square foot. A fake field, you start to approach $9, $10, $12, $14 dollars a square foot. You name it, it just depends on what bid you decide to go with. There's profit to be made.

The fields do decompose, and they have to be replaced, and they have to be improved. There is significant maintenance on them. Those disinfectants are not innocuous. They are a poor financial investment, and that's the heart of this bill. Don't spend state money on it 'cause it's a bad investment. Whenever you look at the maintenance of those fields, eventually the mats will be replaced and more fill come in, it truly 132 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

won't help. Even with the eco-fill materials, it's not more cost effective, and I've even seen -- I've seen 19 percent more concussions on fake fields in research, peer reviewed research, not less, and we shouldn't debate that now. We should debate getting good fields for the kids, and how we can do that is by the use of natural grass installed properly, and I'd be able to provide information to the committee on just how we could do that and a lot of it has to do with the structures of the fields to begin with. So, I'd be honored to take questions. Thank you very much.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Cordulack. Any questions for Mr. Cordulack? Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY (85th): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had earlier testimony just before you $100,000 per year for maintaining a natural grass playing field versus -- and if you do the math on the synthetic ones, the one in my area is about -- cost about a million to put in, and if it breaks down after 15 years, that's talkin' $66,000 per year, but that's not including the maintenance costs. Do you have any idea, if we were to do an accurate comparison, whether the $100,000 per year for the natural grass course is accurate, and if we add the maintenance cost to the $66,000 per year for the life of the synthetic field, what's the actual cost for that second field?

JEFF CORDULACK: So, the costs of each field that's being maintained will vary by town and crew. There's also choices being made in the management on a daily basis. I can provide the committee 133 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

information about the costs of naturally maintained fields, and from what I see in the those reports, it would be less than $100,000 dollars, but granted I don't know the area that you're talking about with the $100,000. My hope is that anybody could learn how to save money on any kind of field they're doing and to do it cheaply. I will tell you, by many times, manyfold, you will do it better with real grass. Your playing time will be very high, and the quality will be very good if you -- if you start from the beginning saying I'm gonna make a field because most of our fields are parklands and school grounds that are turned over to something else. So, if you bring people that I know in the industry, like Lincoln Landscaping in New Jersey, who cares for 40 school fields, they're all grass. They never complain. They never have downtime. They do it. There are so many examples I could give you, but it often comes down to the drainage.

Now, the gentleman before me mentioned the dust bowl. If you have proper drainage on a grass field, you're gonna have less water table, which allows the microbes to respond better, which reduces the compaction because they form aggregates when they do well. In a real grass system, we can have a very durable field that gets a lot of use, like I said, because their roots are going down deep and deep and deep. And, if we're taking care of a grass field without the old ways of salt-based fertilizers and anything that you'd see in the hardware store, you stop that stuff. That causes compaction. That hurts the microbes. How do these organic guys do it? How do they make it cheaper over the years? They work with the biology. We know how to do it. 134 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

We know when to feed it, and we know how much drainage these fields need.

So, I have to refute many, many of the claims tonight or today along those lines, and I could also continue to talk about the heat issues because, let's just say, the fields get closed when it's really wet. I agree. And, that's not good, but the fields should be closed at 80 degrees air temperature, according to the Mount Sinai Hospital, the experts who work with environmental exposures in kids specifically. I could provide you the references, where they say they can't make people do it, but their recommendation is that 80 degrees they should stop playing on the fields. That's very limiting to the playtime. You could play at night in the summers, but you have to hose them down to water them. You have to cool the fields. That doesn't sound perfect, but I've seen perfect grass fields all over the place. I know people making millions of dollars taking care of them, and they do it because they love it, and they've figured it out, and we know how to do it. If you follow the NOFA Organic Land Care Standards, you'll have your field. And, what we're missing in this state is the concept that grass -- I mean somebody's spun a story saying that grass can't do it for you, and that's -- sorry -- it's an untruth, and I'd like to be able to provide as much resource material as this committee needs, and I hope I answered Representative Mushinsky's question adequately, but I do caution you against investing our hard-earned state dollars, which we are struggling to find, in any more fake turf fields. In fact, find hard-earned state dollars and train the people who need to take care of those fields in the basics. 135 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Representative Mushinsky, you all set? Very good. So, Representative Michel.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Cordulack or Cordulack [French pronunciation] for coming here today. Thank you. I just had a brief question. You mentioned something about eco-friendly fills. Can you elaborate on that please? Thank you.

JEFF CORDULACK: Sure. I think we should ban crumb rubber, and I think we should ban all fake turf fields in general because the grass works better and it's cheaper. The eco-fills has kinda been a red herring for a little bit. Down in Greenwich, down in places we've pulled out the crumb rubber (thank God for them taking action) and put in a new fill. The problem is, those fills aren't tested for safety. They're not adequately tested, just like the other fill they took out wasn't adequately tested. That's the source of your issue. If you're gonna talk about alternative fills, unfortunately we haven't gotten to the point of requiring adequate testing on those alternative fields.

Let me give you an example. How about the sand covered with plastic. The acrylic-covered sand. Are you all familiar with that or have heard of this type of thing? Plastics are famous for attracting chemicals and pollutants, all sorts. The sand is famous for calling a disease in the lungs, silicosis, from miners who mine sand. So, now we're gonna be out there with kids grinding sand grains against themselves and eventually getting through 136 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the plastic coat, exposing silica and the plastics, when you could spend less money on grass and have excessive -- ample playing time. It's just not fair to say grass can't be the go-to in any future field. Should we rip out current fields? I think they should -- they should be taken out at their nearest convenience, and they should never be replaced with a fake turf field again, and I can say that on over 20 years of experience in this field.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): And could you provide us with some material to --? Okay.

JEFF CORDULACK: I will provide the committee the research studies that I've started to allude to -- the concussion one, the cost of the fields, and as far as the studies on eco-fills, well there really aren't any. There's just product -- product promotional material from the industry. So, I encourage you all to not fund any future fake fields. I encourage you to ask experts, I guess, like myself, but there's many others. I'm the expert that will point you to the solutions, the people who are doing it.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Mr. Cordulack.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Do you know of any towns in Connecticut that have grass -- a few grass fields they use year round?

JEFF CORDULACK: Well, I don't live in Ridgefield, but I’m really envious of their beautiful fields. I 137 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

think it's at the YMCA. I think the town of Branford has some great fields. The Greens Farms Academy in Westport -- amazing. That guy that takes care of that field is a speaker for the NOFA Organic Land Care Program. There's a lotta great examples, and I could bring you more from around the country.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Are you aware that Ridgefield has four turf fields as well they use year-round?

JEFF CORDULACK: Yeah, unfortunately.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Greens Farms has two -- three now -- because the grass fields, you can't use them year-round, correct?

JEFF CORDULACK: Well, I'm not familiar with their challenges on the ground there, but maybe they haven't gotten all the solutions in place.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Do you work with any towns in Connecticut?

JEFF CORDULACK: I'm not currently contracted to work with any towns in Connecticut.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Would you agree with the study from Safe Health Playing Fields that grass fields are more than double the labor hours per year than turf fields?

JEFF CORDULACK: Well, let's not talk about labor hours, let's talk about dollars and cents, and I'd say that there is a -- I'd like those estimates to be looked at over a 10-year span, and those estimates may reduce in costs over time. From what 138 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

I've seen, that's always what happens with an organically managed field. There's a few upfront costs, and then once those roots go down, boy they get tough. Remember, they wanna survive too, but I appreciate your line of questioning.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions for Mr. Cordulack? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cordulack. We appreciate it.

JEFF CORDULACK: Thank you. It's an honor to be in front of this esteemed committee.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. So, I notice that Representative D'Agostino has graced us with his presence. [laughing] We have been anticipating your arrival sir. Would you care to testify in front of the Environment Committee?

REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies to the committee for bein' late. Thank you for letting me cut the line. Thank you to the folks who are waiting here as well.

I'm here to testify on House Bill 5308. Thank you to the committee for raising it. I would just note briefly that this is the same bill the committee passed in 2017 by a 30 to nothing vote, and it passed the House -- I think I have the numbers here -- it was something like more than a hundred to ten or something along those lines. So, it passed 139 to ten in the House. Unfortunately, it wasn't called for a vote in the Senate, and so I'm hoping 139 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

that the committee will see to revisit it again, send it to us, and we will hopefully be able to move it forward this year. I'd note that since then we've spent an additional $2 million dollars on tree cutting with apparently no appreciable standards that govern the DOT's work aside from the 30-foot rule. They simply cut 30 feet back from the highway. And, Senator Miner, I think when I was here last time you told an anecdote that I think, sort of, crystallizes this issue perfectly, which was that in your area they literally cut instead of 30 feet back, 30 feet up and off of a hill, where there was no possible way the tree could -- was in any danger of coming down, a healthy tree, coming down to the road, and certainly no danger of a car somehow catapulting 30 feet up in the air to hit that tree, and yet they cut because it's within that swath. This bill just simply says develop some standards when you're goin' to do this work. Maybe there's a way actually when you look at doin' it only with respect to dead or dying or damaged trees, it will actually save some money and we don't have to spend $2 million dollars a year on wholesale clear-cutting. So, I do thank the committee for raising the bill again, and I hope we'll be able to get outta both the House and the Senate this year.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. I -- just for clarification for myself -- I thought I saw it, and I can't find it naturally now as I'm looking for it -- the testimony from the Department of Transportation saying that they have a vegetation management protocol. So, I'm curious. What is your bill going to do that they are not -- what is your bill going to require them to do that they're not doing presently? 140 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST): Right, when you look at their protocols, at the end of the day all it distills down to is they claim that there's a federal standard that says that they should do 30 feet from the highway, which, of course, is not a mandate. It's not a directive from the federal government. It's just something -- it's a guideline that was published years ago that they claim to have to follow. This would actually say consult with DEEP, consult with an arborist, which as far as I know they do not do, when you're going to be -- So, if you've got a mile-stretch that you wanna cut, consult with an arborist. Have an arborist come out, take a look at it. If there's a -- if you've gotta take those trees down and they're healthy, have a plan for what you're gonna put in place rather than, for example, just leaving piles of sawdust that can lead to standing water and invasive species growing. Have a plan in place when you're doing that. And, maybe when you do that, and you consult with an arborist -- and by the way there are arborists on staff at DEP, so you do not have to hire an arborist if you're DOT, just simply consult with people that are already on the state payroll, get some input -- and again, maybe you'll be able to develop a -- maybe it won't change, but maybe you'll at least be able to develop a plan that's a little bit more thoughtful than simply clear-cutting 30 feet on either side of the highway.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Thank you. Questions for our esteemed colleague? Representative O'Dea.

141 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I think I have an idea. What we can do is we can combine your bill with my DEEP consent order bill with Representative Mushinsky's bill concerning protection and accountability of energy efficient funds, and we'll get it through the Senate.

REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST): An omnibus bill sounds good to me.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): [laughing] All right. So, it sounds like a plan. We'll talk about it later.

REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Senator Cohen, do you have a question?

SENATOR COHEN (12TH): Thank you, Representative, for your testimony. We have some testimony here from a professor of forestry at UConn, who, while generally supportive, has some concerns about additional regulations that would require DOT to submit paperwork and basically says that we should be focused on growth management, really coming up with a grow program of healthy trees, rather than focus so much on what we're cutting down. Any thoughts on that? REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST): I mean, I don't wanna add to a regulatory burden here. I think that that is something that needs to be done statewide, and it's probably more something for DEP. I think within the context here, I would say that that concern is limited to when you're talkin' about where you're cutting, and as I just mentioned, I think you do 142 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

want to make sure you're considering the aftermath. If you're going to clear-cut a section -- I mean, let's say that for -- there is a determination made for safety reasons that this particular medium needs to be cleared for safety reasons, even of healthy trees -- okay fine -- but if you're goin' to just leave behind (I mean, you've all seen it) piles of sawdust that suppress other growth, lead to standing water, and in many cases invasive weeds and species comin' in, you wanna at least have a plan for clearing that out and maybe putting something in that's -- if you need to -- either grass or shrubbery or whatever it is, that's a more manageable species from a DOT and a DEP perspective, but I wouldn't bolt on to what I'm proposing here an overall forest management plan on DOT. That really isn't their purview. It is a question for DEP, and I would have a concern about adding too much of a cost to what we're proposing here, or a cost to what we're proposing here.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Any further questions for Representative D'Agostino? Okay, Representative.

REP. D'AGOSTINO (91ST): Thank you to the committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Thank you. So, we will return to the members of the public. We're on Bill Number 5249, and Mike Papa is the next person signed up to testify.

MIKE PAPA: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for giving me a chance to speak on this very important matter. You know, the way I wanna -- to see things 143 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

in a different point of view. You know, because everybody's talking about the -- first of all, I'm in favor (if I don't put my glasses, I don't see anything) -- I'm in favor of the SB 234 -- you know, not completely in favor, but cautiously in favor. You know, we don't know too much here. Also, the same is for SB 5249 and 5308. Now the question is that people don't see is the fact that we do have -- you know, we don't recognize that nature do mostly on its own. Now one thing I wanna point out over here is the fact that we have a problematic-type issue. We are losing about two-and-a-half percent of beneficial microorganisms into the environment, and the reason, it's multiple reasons, but what I see on the picture over here, since a picture can tell you a thousand words, and right on top over there, there is a plastic turf over there. Now what happened is all of the water that goes on plastic turf, it comes all the way down and it pollutes other things. We don't know if it is only anaerobic or if it's a -- if we have chemicals over there.

But anyway, they're spending about $10 million dollars over there doing that, plus they're doin' some work at the Girls and Boys Club over there, and they fail to recognize the problem there. We just come like a bulldozer doin' things, and we don't take into consideration that we don't do a good job actually. So, the failure to execute these kinds of things, it costs us an arm and a leg. You know, so, I would say that -- not only that, but we lose -- if we don't practice with this ecosystem to do these excellent fields, as Jeff Cordulack says, we also lose the skills to be a steward of the land because we don't practice. So, we get weaker and weaker until something like this comes out, and we just 144 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

don't know about it. We think we did an excellent job over there; I think we did a terrible job because now, you know, where I live, they are dwelling with an issue of the molds. They had to shut down a school over there because of the mold. So, they built a school at the wrong place because they don't follow through on this. We lost the skills to be, you know, to manage the ecosystem. Now this is gonna come -- it's very hard to hear -- it's gonna come with the ZIKA virus. Because we don't know if this is a problem -- if there's disease growing over here. This is a sick environment that we just don't manage. So, we're waiting until the problem comes, and then we pump billions over here. We put $20 million dollars for the schools over here and everything.

So, I would say that we practice, we become good stewards, and that we honor the creator a little bit because nature is willing to do things on its own. If we could just let this -- you know, save these beneficials, they're gonna feed on the disease for us, you know, all right. So, I will appreciate for, you know, for givin' me the opportunity to speak, and I wanna mention that I also worked with the ecosystem for so many years, and I made many observations. So, anybody has something in mind then I will -- you know, questions -- you know, I'm ready to answer if you want. All right, thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay. Thank you, Mr. Papa. Does anyone have questions for Mr. Papa? Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Good afternoon and thank you for being here. So, Representative O'Dea spoke 145 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

briefly about Corkonut filler. Do you have any -- what's your feeling on Corkonut?

MIKE PAPA: Well, you know, I try to be as open- minded as I can. You know, now cork, there's no evidence about anything unsafe about that, until it comes up. So, the question is why do we have to venture into these risky things when we can actually exercise ourselves to deal with nature and one-to- one allow nature to do things on its own. So, I don't think there is evidence about danger by the cork. As a matter of fact, in Stamford, they're doing one field, and in the public hearing I was not completely against that. You know, I try to be open-minded. You know, I'm open-minded about the plastic bag over here because it looks like a good idea. People really still could have a plastic bag when they go to the store without polluting the environment. So, it seems to be a good idea, and I'm all for it, and even this plastic turf. If once in a while there is one it's okay, but then we have to make up the difference with the rest of the ecosystem. We can't just do plastic turf all over the place, and it's not even considered -- you know, the plastic turf is not considered an open space. It's not considered something that kids can go and have fresh air or anything. It's -- you're challenging nature. So, you don't allow nature to contribute -- to cycle and make available to the planet again.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Thank you.

MIKE PAPA: So, we, you know -- we have a problem with -- a bad problem coming up because we're losing two-and-a-half percent a year of these beneficials 146 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

over here. So, within 100 years, we're gonna be not beneficial. The chronic diseases are gonna go through the roof.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Papa. I think Representative O'Dea has a question for you.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick, where is this picture of?

MIKE PAPA: Well, this is in Stamford. That's, you know, Lione Park and the Boys and Girls Club. Years ago, they told me to do something, which I wasn't sure about, you know. But now, I realize that the water is coming from the plastic turf that they put in Lione Park about a few years ago, which is all the way on top, you can barely see it. So, the water comes down. Now that water could even be contaminated with those rubbers or whatever. That's why I'm working with somebody in Oregon -- a matter of fact, he's supposed to call me today. We're supposed to have this conference call how to approach this. But, why we have to get in these things if we could exercise ourselves to do things right. And, you know, because these things, we do it, the salesman comes in to sell you the product. They say, oh yeah, this has got the drainage, and now the drainage is not there. You know, and then he walks away, and now we get stuck, and we didn’t even realize that we had a problem. That thing became a ZIKA virus type of issue coming up, you know.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So, this is a drainage problem. 147 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

MIKE PAPA: Well, it's a drainage that the water comes from the field on top, and then they're also - - they're spending about a lot of money to remediate the Girls Club. And then years ago, they did. You know, we complained, but they did it anyway. They did this plastic turf over there, which people don't like it because they say it gets too hot anyway in that place. But, I didn't do any investigation here, but I'm in the process of coming up with some proposal or something according to what they say -- my expert in Oregon. Because there's another thing -- the experiment [phonetic] station is not as good as it used to because it's been cut. You cut a lot -- you cut the photo here, the experiment station people, we used to call them every day. Now, when you call, they give you a general type of guy that knows about everything. But, you know, that's another kind of issue.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions for Mr. Papa? Okay. Mr. Papa, thank you very much for your patience and for your testimony. So, the next person is Eric Roise. I hope I pronounced that properly. ["You did, thank you very much" in the background] [laughing] Welcome, sir.

ERIC ROISE: Thank you. Thank you Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Eric Roise. I'm a resident of Centerbrook, born and raised in Connecticut in Branford. For 24 years, I've been a licensed landscape architect working in the Hartford 148 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

area. I am a project manager at a firm called Kaestle Boos Associates in New Britain. The majority of my career has been planning for, designing, and overseeing construction of schools, parks, athletic fields for municipalities within Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Most of my job when I'm working with municipalities, a good part of it, is educating owners of the tools they have for planning their athletic facilities. Synthetic turf is one of those tools.

I do not support raised Bill 5249, as the proposed ban ignores the body of scientific research created in the past 30 years regarding synthetic turf and any definitive link to negative health effects. This ban also ignores the determinations of the Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and Washington State Departments of Health, which have all found no indication of negative health effects. This proposed ban is based on supposition, perception, and negative media reports, which have been subsequently proven false by private, state, and federal reviews, which have been peer-reviewed by the scientific community in the U.S. and Europe.

In the past 20 years, the popularity of youth sports and soccer have increased exponentially, and new sports, such as lacrosse, have become commonplace. The result has been an increased demand for athletic facilities nationwide and a corresponding degradation in the quality of natural turf fields. Overused fields result in soil compaction, poor grass growth, and unsafe playing conditions. Over- scheduling also creates the pressure to use fields in a wet or saturated condition, which quickly degrades fields -- field conditions further. 149 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

Most natural turf fields are only capable of around 250 games per -- games and practices per year before maintenance becomes impossible on a municipal budget with a municipal level of expertise. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know the challenges that municipalities face every day in balancing resources to keep fields in playable condition. In my career, I have planned for and designed almost a hundred synthetic turf fields. Almost a hundred percent of those fields have been converting existing natural turf fields to synthetic. Converting a field to synthetic addresses the demand for additional athletic fields without the need to purchase and develop new land. It also prevents the duplication of infrastructure associated with fields, such as parking, lighting, and amenities -- amenities that would be constructed on a new field, only to be used for about 600 hours per year. A converted synthetic turf field can be used for 650 games per year theoretically, or 1600 hours per year. A typical field is about four acres in size. The use of synthetic turf has prevented a significant amount of land in Connecticut from forever being cleared and leveled for a monoculture of over-managed lawn to accommodate the demand for athletic fields.

The U.S. EPA is currently performing a comprehensive multi-agency study on synthetic turf and recycled crumb rubber, as the result of media articles suggesting a link between crumb rubber and certain rare lymphomas in soccer goalkeepers. These same media articles have been frequently repeated as evidence of the health risk, even though subsequent studies have noted the amount of lymphomas observed 150 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

was statistically normal (Washington State Health Department).

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I'm gonna ask you to please summarize Mr. Roise, if you wouldn't mind.

ERIC ROISE: I'll quickly summarize. The evidence of a federal study on crumb rubber does not indicate a health risk. The uncorroborated opinion of noted scientist or doctor does not indicate a health risk. Action on synthetic turf should be reserved time when negative results are discovered and confirmed, if they are discovered at all. Currently, the 30- year history of study on turf and turf research does not support the proposed ban. Bill 5249 should be rejected.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. I'll ask -- Representative Horn, do you have a question?

REP. HORN (64TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m gonna join in the chorus I've heard from many other people. I'm a lacrosse goalie. My daughter's a lacrosse goalie. My son's a soccer goalie and a baseball player. I've logged a lot of time on both natural and artificial turf, and so my -- I definitely concur in the many comments about how it gets kids outside much earlier, particularly when you're in a spring sport. But I wonder what your experience is with non-rubber, you know non -- synthetic turfs that are -- the cork -- that are natural based -- the Corkonut, there we go, the Corkonut word was escaping me -- comparing that, those experiences to the rubber based. Thank you.

151 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

ERIC ROISE: So, organic in-fill is becoming much more popular because of the issues or the perceived issues with crumb rubber. There's many different kinds. There's Corkonut. There's walnut shells. There's a new product out there that's made of southern yellow pine, I believe.

The issue with -- there's a number of issues with the organic. It's a beautiful material. It's a beautiful field. If designed right, it has all the safety of a crumb rubber field. What happens though is number one it freezes. You have to keep the material wet, and in the New England environment, with the weather we've been having especially, it gets wet. It gets saturated. It freezes solid. You can't get footing on it. So, that's one issue. Another issue is that it does need to be watered. You need to keep the moisture level in it up, so it doesn't turn to dust. So, those are the two issues. You're actually installing an irrigation system on it and also keeping after it to keep it from freezing.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In your testimony, reading it, you've designed, planned for and designed, almost a hundred synthetic turf fields, and most have converted from natural to synthetic. Have you -- are you aware of any of those going back from synthetic back to natural? ERIC ROISE: No, no. I am aware -- it wasn't my project, but I know Quinnipiac is going from an organic back to rubber because of the freezing issue. 152 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Interesting. I didn't know about that. So, the cost -- are you aware of the annual cost comparison between natural field and synthetic?

ERIC ROISE: So, the municipalities I work with usually spend well less than $27,000 dollars per year on a natural field. A natural field, if you're using it the recommended amount, which is about 200 times per year -- most of the time it's not getting used because the grass just can't handle it -- it costs about $2,700, and that's striping it, that's mowing it, that's irrigating it, that's doing everything. When you put the level of play on it that you would put on a synthetic turf, that's when it bumps up to that hundred thousand because you're basically re-sodding the field every year. And the pressure is that number one you get rain days. It'll rain for three days, and then it'll be sunny, and the athletic director will still have to cancel games because the field is still saturated. So, if they don't have the strength to deny all the parents to play on that field, it gets played on when it wet, and you've ruined the field in one game.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And how long does it take for a field to get repaired like that, from that situation where it gets --? And I've witnessed it myself.

ERIC ROISE: If you sod it, three months is what we recommend if you put in sod that's been grown previously, brought in, and rolled out.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): So obviously, the field is down for that three-month period. 153 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

ERIC ROISE: Yes. If you seed it, it's 18 months.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Seeding is 18 months, sodding is --

ERIC ROISE: Correct. Three.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): And what's the annual cost on a synthetic turf?

ERIC ROISE: Synthetic turf, for maintenance, you're dragging it with a brush to clean everything out. You're dragging it with a magnet if there's any metal that gets into the system, like bobby pins or things like that. You're also just raking the in- fill material to spread it out and get it even. Typically, we figure it's about five grand a year.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): In reading the SafeHealthyPlayingFields.org, they site that it's more than double man hours for a grass field over synthetic field, does that sound -- for upkeep?

ERIC ROISE: That would probably be accurate, yeah.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): I think you said, in caring for a grass field, did you say $2,700 dollars?

ERIC ROISE: $27,000.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): $27,000.

ERIC ROISE: I might've said $2,700 but $27,000.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Okay. And that's assuming not anywhere near as much use, correct? 154 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

ERIC ROISE: Correct, correct.

REP. O'DEA (125TH): Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions for Mr. Roise? No? Okay. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your testimony and your time. So, we are moving on to House Bill 5308, which is AN ACT CONCERNING VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ALONG STATE HIGHWAYS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. The first person signed up for that bill is Thomas Worthley. Welcome, sir.

THOMAS WORTHLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Co- Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Thomas Worthley. I live in Higganum, Connecticut. I am the professor that was mentioned earlier from UConn, and I'm here to elucidate a little bit on the written testimony that I provided kind of on short notice yesterday.

And, I want to just bring to everybody's attention that this notion of roadside forest management is something that we have been working on for some years now with support through the Eversource Energy Center at UConn with some partners at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and with Connecticut DEEP to address roadside forest conditions that are -- present threats and hazards during extreme storm events. And the notion behind making these management recommendations is to actually grow forest conditions that will be storm resistant and ultimately storm resilient. We can describe a desired condition along our roadside 155 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

according to species mix, age, structure, density that would be storm resistant, that would achieve the various public safety, storm resilience, and myriad of other benefits that forests provide. And so, I see this as an opportunity, contrary to what Congressman D'Agostino said, to actually -- to do some management planning. I don't necessarily suggest we impose a huge management planning burden on state DOT for all the state highways, but certainly some management ideas could be applied to the work they do to select trees along the roadways that we feel are appropriate to keep going there and identify young trees that we think we should leave behind and give them more space.

We use principles that we know about growing trees. Trees with space to grow are healthier trees. Trees that are allowed to move in the wind will develop wind firmness. Tree leaves and branches, tops and branches, they grow towards the light. So, when the forest conditions along the roadside are crowded, it's no wonder that the trees grow out over the road and lean towards the road. And growing the right tree in the right place will certainly avoid conflicts with infrastructure in the future. And so, the time is right now because of a related issue, a perfect storm, I call it the slow storm, of weather, insects, and disease factors has caused the deaths of thousands of trees, tens of thousands of roadside trees, creating public safety issues throughout the eastern part of the state with oak trees and the western part of the state with ash trees, and the states and towns are going to be addressing this issue. It would be appropriate as - - and you will all hear about these with other bills that come up, I'm sure -- would be to step back and 156 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

think about a comprehensive management program for growing roadside forests in the way they serve us best. And I'm available to help, to provide input in that sort of process, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Professor Worthley. First of all, I'm sure Representative D'Agostino would be happy to know that he was just promoted to Congressman. [laughing] That would please him greatly. [laughing] That's okay. I'm teasing. But, more importantly, are you in touch with -- are you personally in touch with DOT about this issue. Have you had conversations with them?

THOMAS WORTHLEY: Not specifically about this issue. I am familiar with the arborists who work with DOT on some other projects that I've been involved with. I haven't been approached by them to discuss what we've done with storm-wise and how it might be applied to state highways, but I'm certainly willing to do so.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): I would encourage it. But, well -- I will ask other members if they have questions. Representative Gucker.

REP. GUCKER (138TH): Hi, thank you for coming out. So, what -- what we've noticed on my end of the state is we got hit with tornadoes that led to a tremendous amount of storm damage, but what it also did is it weakened a lot of the trees having their root in the ground because they were jostled around in so many different directions that going forward we are concerned about the amount of rain we're getting because now it's weakening the soil and 157 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

they're already compromised. In fact, on a dry, sunny day, we had a tree -- it turned out to be dead through the center -- that fell on Connecticut Highway 37 killing the driver of the car and damaging a building. Does any of this -- any of this idea gonna go forward into taking care of some of that issues?

THOMAS WORTHLEY: Well, the reason the initiative began in the first place was as the result of events like that that occurred a few years ago, and part of what came out of the Two Storm Panel at that time was recommendations that Eversource engage with UConn to develop a research program to look into these issues. We've created a dozen demonstration sites around the state to, you know, create conditions we think that will ultimately evolve into more storm-resilient conditions. We can't prevent everything. We would like to think that a program like this would reduce the number of disruptions caused by trees, and when disruptions are caused that they would be of shorter duration and easier to clean up. Many trees we have in our roadside forests and along our roadsides are trees that started growing 100 years ago and they're near the end of their natural lifespan, and it's not unexpected that some of those trees will fail. Trees that get injured during the course of their lifetime do have rotten spots inside them that create weaknesses, and in an active management program, those sorts of things would be recognized along the way and addressed before they became problems.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gresko. 158 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. You said you live in Higganum?

THOMAS WORTHLEY: I do.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): But you work at Yale?

THOMAS WORTHLEY: No, I work at UConn.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): UConn, okay. Now have you had a chance to frequent the span between Hartford and New Haven on 91 in the recent past. So, you've seen what is going on as far as the amount of clear- cutting on the median there. My question to you in your expertise is -- I'm assuming that DOT is going to do nothing besides clear what's there -- what is gonna happen to that median?

THOMAS WORTHLEY: In places where trees are still left, where trees have been cleared 30-foot back and a hard edge has been left, now you have trees that have been in the woods, are now exposed to the wind, and they do not have the wind firmness that an open- growing tree would have. New vegetation will grow up, will sprout from where the trees have been cleared away, and this will be a variety of shrubs, young trees, other things that happen to be -- volunteer into those places. And what will happen after that, you know, with no management at all? Well, the opportunity here is to manage the young growth -- you know, to select it for density and species selection -- and my suggestion would be that they didn't need to actually clear. They probably needed to clear some trees, remove some trees, and select others to continue to grow and to work 159 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

further back than just 30 feet. If that tree is left to grow, that's 20 feet from the road, you wanna give it space on all sides, so it develops in a balanced way and doesn't grow out towards the road.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): What about runoff? I mean, you're assuming that these weeds and these shrubs and new trees are going to -- going to sprout, but you've seen the types of rain that we've been getting recently, and I'm worried that in the interest of trying to clear-cut the medians in the interest of safety, they're going to create a runoff issue where it'll exacerbate sinking.

THOMAS WORTHLEY: In the short term, you can expect areas that have been cleared of vegetation like that to produce more runoff water. This has been shown time and time again in clear-cut studies in forestland in a variety of different places around the country. It's well established in the literature though that it's short term. Generally, in a year or two following that, with the flush of new vegetation, that -- that goes away.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Okay. Dr. Worthley.

THOMAS WORTHLEY: Thank you very much.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you very much for your testimony and your patience. Thank you. The next person is Eric Hammerling. Welcome.

ERIC HAMMERLING: Thank you. Good afternoon, and it's an honor to speak after Dr. Worthley. My name 160 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

is Eric Hammerling, and I'm the Executive Director of the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, and I'm here to testify in support of HB 5308.

I'm sure all of you have sat in traffic on a state highway after a lane was closed to remove trees and wondered whether the removals were necessary, especially on median strips, in a valley below the road, or if trees that at their mature heights would never be a threat to fall on the road. In these budget-conscious times, you may have wondered why ConnDOT would allocate significant to removing trees, or why they're now adhering to such rigid natural highway engineering standards for tree removal. HB 5308 would not stop removals of trees along state highways, but it should make ConnDOT's vegetation management guidelines and budget more transparent and comprehensive. The trees in the median strip that DOT removes to prevent cars from crashing into them are the same trees that filter headlights, provide wind breaks, and prevent runaway cars from driving across the median strip into oncoming traffic. There are definitely trees along state highways that are unhealthy or poorly sighted that should be removed, but there are others that are healthy and should be retained whenever possible.

And invasive species, pollinators, storm water runoff, erosion, and other factors noted in this bill are important for ConnDOT to consider in its vegetation management guidelines. After Tropical Storm Irene and the October nor'easter, I served as the State Vegetation Management Task Force. The focus of our published report was to achieve a balance for both the state's electrical 161 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

infrastructure and healthy roadside trees. The need for balance in managing trees along state highways is similar. To achieve this balance, professional arborists can develop vegetation management guidelines to both target unhealthy, poorly sighted trees for removal and also identify which trees should be maintained.

To date, the primary focus of DOT's vegetation management efforts and guidelines has been on removals, and although we are aware of DOT's positive pilot projects to promote pollinator habitats and maintain some trees on scenic roads, we would like to see balance continue to evolve along all state highways between removals, maintenance, pruning for tree health, and planting of appropriate trees for Connecticut's future roadside forest. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm glad to respond to any questions you may have.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Any questions from committee members? Representative Mushinsky.

REP. MUSHINSKY (85th): Have you -- Eric, have you tried talking to them one-on-one to see why they feel they need to go all the way across the median. Because some of the -- on 91, the median is very wide in some places, and they've actually clear-cut all the way across, which seems unnecessary to prevent liability.

ERIC HAMMERLING: Yeah. Thank you for the question, and I certainly have asked that question of DOT, and in some instances when they have cut in areas where they hadn't cut for many years, they said they found infrastructure that they didn't know even existed, 162 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

like culverts that needed to be maintained. So, in some areas, they felt the need to go further with the cutting than they normally would because they found infrastructure there. They also have National Engineering Standards that they use to determine the width on either median strips or on the edge of the road where they propose a clearance zone, which is what they rigidly adhere to. And we would certainly say, you know, that's fine to have that as a starting point, but they really, you know, the more they work with arborists to say within this clearance zone there are trees that can be maintained, it doesn't have to be a full clearance, you know, we'd like to see that kind of moderate approach in some of those areas. But certainly, I think many of us have seen be it Route 9, Route 2, Route 8, Route 91, you know, we get calls all the time in our office asking that question -- why are they cutting down all these trees -- and I have to respond as I just did. They have a standard that they use. We wish the standard was moderated by a better understanding of trees and actually hazardous trees that arborists could help them determine.

REP. MUSHINSKY (85th): But is it a federal standard? Must they obey it, or is it --?

ERIC HAMMERLING: It's not a federal standard, and it's not one that they must obey. It's -- I believe it's, and someone from DOT can correct me on this, I think it's the National Association of State Highway Engineers has the standard clearance zone, and they use it because it is a standard, but they're not forced to use it.

REP. MUSHINSKY (85th): Okay, thank you. 163 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions for Mr. Hammerling? No. Okay.

ERIC HAMMERLING: Okay. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. So, next is Arthur Marcelynas. Welcome, sir.

ARTHUR MARCELYNAS: Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Art Marcelynas, and I live in Waterbury, Connecticut, a lifelong resident there. A couple of the previous speakers brought up the Two Storm Panel, and I just wanna touch on that for a moment. In the wake of Tropical Storm Irene and the October nor'easter in 2011, Governor Malloy tasked the Two Storm Panel with evaluating the state's preparation and response to storms and making recommendations for a way to improve future disaster response.

The Panel issued its report in January of 2012. While much of the report focused on utility preparedness and response, it also identified the need to address roadside trees. Experts in 2011 testified that although the two storms resulted in significant tree-related damage, that damage fell short of that which will occur when a major storm, such as a category three hurricane, hits Connecticut. The testimony also indicated Connecticut has not experienced a major storm in over 50 years and is therefore due for such an event. Witnesses also testified that it took up to 72 hours to clear roads blocked by fallen trees before restoration of electric service could begin. The report found that unless action is taken to 164 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

eliminate dead and at-risk trees from alongside our roads, that we will repeat this experience. Since a major storm will impact significantly more roadside trees than the 2011 storms, the time needed to just clear roads would increase. The problems from such an event would be further magnified if it were the result of an ice storm and several days of cold temperature. Simply state, consider the life- threatening impact of an extended power outage in cold weather compared to the power outage we experienced in 2011 during relatively moderate temperatures in the fall. With roads blocked, people would be homebound in subzero temperature for days, unable to travel to safety, and unable to be reached by first responders.

As a result of Connecticut's experience in 2011, utility budgets for tree trimming were increased by millions, allowing the electric companies to be more aggressive in clearing trees and limbs around power lines across the state. It's easy to see the results of this effort as you drive down our roads because on one side of the road you'll see a clear zone around the power lines, and on the opposite side there seems to be no vegetation management in place because the view is so different. Trees are everywhere. As the professor said, they're leaning towards the road looking for sunlight. They're dead, they're dying, and there are dead trees abound.

I respectfully request that the recommendations of the Two Storm Panel be given considerable weight when considering any guidelines that govern tree management. Simply stated, not the Interstate 84s although they -- and 8s of the state, but the 165 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

smaller state roads would be blocked completely by it. You just wouldn't be able to move until you got rid of the trees. Those who support this, the bill, state that roadside forests help define the character of Connecticut and that guidelines developed and implemented by arborists are critical to protecting roadside forest health. I'd agree with that, but the safety of Connecticut's motorists must be DOT's primary consideration. Roadside trees have not been well managed and now pose a serious and immediate threat to public safety. An article in the Hartford Courant last fall pointed this out.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Mr. Marcelynas, so, your time is up. If you wanna say one more thing, that's fine, but I think we're -- and we have your written testimony, I believe.

ARTHUR MARCELYNAS: All right. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Did you submit? You submitted it to the committee?

ARTHUR MARCELYNAS: I did submit the testimony.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay.

ARTHUR MARCELYNAS: And finally, with regard to safety, I can speak from personal experience. On March 2, 2017, my son James was killed in a tree fall incident along Route 6 in Colombia. The tree that fell was covered to the top with large old growth vines. It masked the condition of the tree. It was leaning toward and over the road. It was completely rotted at the base, allowed a gust of 166 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

wind to catch the vines, and knock it into the path of my son's vehicle.

Again, I think the previous -- and my son's not the only person who's died in these, one of the representatives cited a recent incident. I think it's bigger than just setting up a few guidelines to manage the trees. This is a very comprehensive effort that needs to be undertaken. I would encourage anybody that's in this room driving home to pay closer attention to the roads you travel on to see the dead trees, the limbs from ash that are alongside the road, a tree that's fallen that DOT has sliced and left one piece over here and one piece over there that fortunately didn't catch a motorist traveling by. So, whatever guidelines are developed, it really needs to be a very comprehensive approach taking into consideration environmental impacts but more importantly the safety of the traveling public.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Mr. Marcelynas, I am so sorry for your loss.

ARTHUR MARCELYNAS: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): And I appreciate your bringing a different perspective on this issue to the committee. So, I thank you, and again, my condolences to you. I don't know if any committee members have any questions for Mr. Marcelynas.

ARTHUR MARCELYNAS: Thank you very much.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So, the next person to testify is Wes Haynes. 167 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

WES HAYNES: Good afternoon, Senator Cohen, Representative Demicco, and members of the Environment Committee. My name is Wes Haynes. I'm the Executive Director of the Merritt Parkway Conservancy based in Stamford. The Merritt Parkway Conservancy supports HB 5308. The Merritt Parkway Conservancy is a private, member-supported, nonprofit organization committed to the stewardship of the Merritt Parkway. Founded by former Connecticut Department of Transportation Commissioner Emil Frankel in 2002, the Conservancy serves on ConnDOT'S Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee to voice the concerns of Connecticut citizens, civic groups, municipalities who desire to see the parkway preserved and revitalized. The Conservancy is closely aware and sympathetic to the significant challenges that DOT faces in managing vegetation along the state highways. Throughout the state, recent roadside vegetation management work is focused on remediating widespread overgrowth resulting from long-deferred tree care by removing overgrowth weakened and damaged by age, disease, invasive blinds, and our severe storms.

DOTs current vegetation management guidelines prepared in February 2018 in response to the last try at this bill, they covered tree removal, limb, brush, and storm debris management, mowing, herbicide use, and establishing experimental pollinator corridors. These current guidelines aim to "standardize the vegetative landscape along Connecticut highways" as a strategy intended to control it, reduce risk, and contain cost. While special provisions for parkways and scenic roads are noted in the guidelines, the guidelines don't direct 168 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

DOT to replace trees and shrubs that they remove. There's no plan in place. Many communities in Connecticut have a one-to-one replacement. You take down an old tree, you put in a new tree. As a result, when funds for tree removal is budgeted, funding to replace them is excluded.

DOT's Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee recognizes this as a problem. We at the Conservancy are dismayed by the impact the guidelines have had on diminishing the visual aspect and impact of flowering shrubs and deciduous trees that were so central to the beauty of the parkway and a homogenizing face of the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways and other scenic roads in the name of vegetation management. Moreover, we observe that some methods permitted in the guidelines are counterproductive and not cost-effective. For example, using a track, that's a thing that looks like a tank, a feller buncher to remove trees, requires clear-cutting paths through healthy understory to maneuver and disturb the soil, and it invites the spread of undesirable invasives.

So, I just want to close by saying our stewardship mission will be strengthened by guidelines like these. We really need them. The time is urgent. It's long overdue, and I appreciate the work you do and the opportunity to speak today.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Mr. Haynes. Thank you for your patience and your testimony. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Haynes? Representative Gresko.

169 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick question. In your conservancy role, are you allowed yourselves to put any vegetation on the Merritt Parkway. Let's say a tree went down, or they took a tree down or a shrub or something like that, are you allowed by DOT or the FDA to put anything there?

WES HAYNES: Currently, we are not. We don't meet the standards. We do have contractors that meet the standards that DOT has to plant on the parkway, but we don't have an agreement in place currently. In the past, we have. In past years, in fact, the concerns -- the parkway, when it was built, was planted in many areas by local garden clubs. There was a lot of private -- it was an early model of public-private partnership, and so the character was really brought in that way, and we have had programs in the past where we have done that. We don't have it. We would love to have a program like that, and in fact if the guidelines could reflect that -- encouraging private-public partnerships in that kind of aspect, the Conservancy stands ready to do that.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Anyone else, questions? Yes, Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107th): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony and for what you do, your advocacy. My question is -- kind of piggybacks off of what, you know, the previous speaker had addressed, and that's a safety issue. I mean, how do you propose in your organization balancing that effort -- balancing what we're tryin' to do here by protecting the vegetation, by you know preserving 170 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the beauty of our landscape here, but at the same time making sure that the residents our safe traveling our roads. I know in Brookfield, in my district, we had a terrible tornado come through with damage all over the place, trees all over the place, had some injuries and unfortunately some deaths due to trees falling. So, how do you propose balancing that from your expertise?

WES HAYNES: We get the problem that they're facing right now. There's a lot of dead disease. The ash down on the parkway, for example, is -- is on its way out. And, right now, DOT is doing a project in Greenwich. It hasn't been maintained for really about 30 years. They haven't done any serious tree work there. We're working with them to -- we've basically said let's take out all the pines, any ash you see, any trees over a certain size within the 30-foot clear zone that Eric referred to in his testimony. Wherever there's guardrails, they don't have to cut back 30 feet because a car isn't gonna skid off the road onto the shoulder in that way. But, we are working with them to compromise with smaller trees, young immature trees, in fact, some trees that were planted within the last 30 years when the Greenwich section was done that don't conform to the 30-foot rule. And, you know -- and I agree with the approach that we can't eliminate risk completely on the parkway, but we can radically reduce it. So, you know, get rid of the dead stuff, but do it smart. Don't just cut back to the 30-foot zone and, as the professor said, expose all these trees that have never been out in the open before and they're liable to start failing as well.

171 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

So, it is a compromise. I was out with the arborists on the parkway two weeks ago looking at trees and doing a walkthrough. We work really closely with them on those kind of projects.

REP. HARDING (107th): Thank you for your answer. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

WES HAYNES: The guidelines will help.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions for Mr. Haynes? No. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Haynes. Thanks very much for your testimony.

WES HAYNES: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay. So, we are moving on to House Bill 5185, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSENT ORDERS ENTERED INTO BY THE COMMISSIONER OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, and to testify, we have Nathan Markee. [corrected pronunciation in background] Nathan Markee, okay. Mr. Markee, welcome, and thanks for your patience.

NATHAN MARKEE: [background microphone check] Can you hear me? All right. I got five of 'em I'm gonna speak upon real quickly. I'm representing the Windsor Climate Action Group Committee (whatever you wanna call it), and we are opposed to HB 5185. We are in support of HB 5249, in support of HB 5251, in support of SB 20, and in support of HB 5394.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Very succinct and direct. 172 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

NATHAN MARKEE: Any questions? [laughing]

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Well, are there any questions from committee members? Okay, I think we're all set.

NATHAN MARKEE: That's it, beautiful. Next time I gotta sign up on the early one no matter what -- no matter if I have an opinion or not. All right. Thank you very much.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir.

NATHAN MARKEE: Have a great day.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): So, we are on to House Bill 5251, which is AN ACT PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION AND TRADE OF SHARK FINS, and is Kathryn Kullverg, I hope I pronounced that -- is that --? ["Yep, Kullverg" in background] Welcome.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairs Cohen and Demicco and members of the committee. My name is Kathryn Kullverg. I'm the Director of Marine and Wildlife Protection at the Humane Society of the United States. On behalf of the HSUS, the nation's largest animal protection organization and our Connecticut supporters, I would like to testify in support of HB 5251 with amendments, a bill intended to prohibit the sale of shark fins in Connecticut. Many thanks to Representative Michel for championing this important piece of legislation. The act of shark finning is a destructive fishing practice, involving hacking the fins off sharks, 173 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

often while they're still alive, and throwing them back overboard to die slowly. The shark is unable to swim or eat and lies suffering until it dies. All of this to provide for an Asian luxury menu item called shark fin soup, one that's especially popular at weddings and celebratory functions to show off one's status.

Fortunately, shark finning is prohibited by federal law, but the U.S. market for fins continues to fuel the practice in foreign and high seas that have lax shark finning bans or shark management and conservation policy. Every year, tens of millions of sharks are killed because of the demand for their fins, and fishermen do not discriminate by species. The global shark fin trade is depleting shark populations worldwide. If this law is enacted, it will ensure that Connecticut does not become a hub for the shark fin trade, as surrounding states ban the product. Thus far, 13 states and all three Pacific territories have enacted laws prohibiting sale and trade of shark fins.

This bill would not harm Connecticut fishermen. The bill does not prevent fisheries from selling the whole shark, regardless of the species, with its fins naturally attached to processors and dealers. Sharks are vital to a healthy marine ecosystem, and I do want to be sure to add that the Mystic Aquarium supports this bill and they have provided testimony. They support this bill with amendments to clarify that this has to do with detached fins, and they have submitted testimony to that effect supporting this legislation. We urge the committee to support HB 5251 with the sponsor's amendments, and if the 174 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

Chairs may allow I wanted to mention two other bills that we're also in support of. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Okay, please do.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: HB 5394, the ivory bill, and SB 20, trophy imports. Both of them, we support with amendments. Poaching, wildlife trafficking, loss and degradation of habitat, and retaliatory killings are among the many factors contributing to the decimation of many African wild animals. I'll leave it at that. We support that legislation with amendments as well. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I’m gonna hazard a guess that Representative Michel would like to ask you a question.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Absolutely.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Chair Demicco, how did you know? [laughing] Thank you. How many sharks are killed each year to fuel the shark fin trade?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: So, annually, it's hard to know an exact number, but estimates are tens of millions of sharks.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Okay, and then why is it critical to ban this product when it is already illegal in U.S. waters?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: So, the act of finning is prohibited in U.S. waters. That doesn't mean it still does not take place, but I can mention a quote 175 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

here from Oceans Asia, Gary Stokes, the founder and CEO in his support letter, he kind of spelled this out, "In Hong Kong, fins arrive from all over the world and are mixed together in batches based on size and species. Location is irrelevant. Orders placed in the U.S. are then supplied from these batches, meaning it is impossible to define the source of origin. It's impossible to establish which boat caught the shark, where they were caught, or through which channels they traveled to reach the end consumer." So, fins in the U.S., fins in Connecticut, can come from finned sharked and endangered species. So essentially, this legislation would be an opportunity for Connecticut to take a stand and end their participation in the global trade in shark fins.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Just for information purposes, Gary Stokes of Oceans Asia has been investigating, documenting, and exposing the true nature of the shark fin industry over the last 15 years. His investigations have resulted in him working closely with the Secretariat (I'm sorry, I'm French, I've gotta read it the way it is), Interpol Wildlife Crime Unit, and various regional governments in the private sector, mostly in the air freight and steam ship companies. And also, an additional point, Interpol recently declared transnational wildlife crime to be the fourth largest -- sorry.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Representative. Is there a question in there somewhere Representative, or?

REP. MICHEL (146TH): No, I was commenting. I will refrain for commenting then.

176 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Only in the interest of time, sir.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Yes, I understand.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Rep -- excuse me, Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here this afternoon. So, what I'm tryin' to get my head around is how do we reinforce your interest in the federal ban and not create an undue harm to people who have lawfully caught dogfish or some other form of pelagic shark, which is allowed, and upon returning to port would break down that animal for human consumption, part of which would be the fins. So, how do we protect people's right to do that and not run afoul of what -- you know, I think everyone that I've spoken with agrees with you that it's just a horrible practice and it shouldn't be allowed, and in fact, it's not, it's against federal law. Go ahead. I'll let you answer.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Thank you for your question. Under -- if this bill were to be enacted, sharks could still be landed. The fisheries could still be landed. It would just be once the fin is detached, it would need to be destroyed and discarded. So, fisherman would continue to be protected to sell, you know, shark steaks, etc.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): So, some of the fisherman that I've spoken with tell me that it is part of that fish and that it is, therefore, part of what the value is of that fish. For instance, certain of 177 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the meat may go to Europe for fish and chips, the balance would stay here for some other purpose. So, in your mind, there would still need to be a possession restriction on a shark fin, even if it was lawfully caught. And Senator Formica was here this morning, and I think he's got a fish market, so if he bought a whole one and broke it down, you're suggesting that they need to throw away the fins?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Correct. The fin only. That's exactly --

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Well, there's more than one fin, so --

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Right, the fins, exactly. And that's an excellent question. It is very difficult for most people to look at a fin and to be able to tell what species it came from and whether it was lawfully caught, because a lot of these sharks that are finned come from Hong Kong and the high seas, so those then get mixed with the batches here. So, that's part of the problem. That's why we need a blanket ban on this product.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): So, I'm happy to take a look at the language when we get that far and see if it actually does give people the protection that I think they need. So, thank you.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Representative Dubitsky.

178 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming in. Senator Miner pretty much asked what I was gonna ask, but your response created a new question in my mind. So, I'm out there on the beach surf fishing, and I pull in a shark, something that I'm legally allowed to keep. I pack it up and bring it home. I give it to my wife, and I say cook 'er up, [laughing] and she can't cook the fins. [background talk, laughing] So, she's gotta remove the fins and throw them away. We can't eat them.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: The fin needs to be discarded. It would make it illegal to be in possession of the fin, and the bill essentially -- we're tryin' to stop folks from stockpiling fins, you know, in an effort to sell them into the market, so.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay, so instead of eating them, we'd have to throw them in the garbage.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Right. Possession, sale, and trade of the fins, correct.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): But wouldn't possessing them in the garbage be possession?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: I think in terms of enforcement, you hopefully would not be in trouble with that, as long as you're showing that you're discarding the item, the product.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): All set, Representative. Representative Michel, please. 179 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I'm still here. Thank you, Chair. Thank you again for testifying. Can you elaborate on the practice of stockpiling fins, just so we have a clear understanding of the origin of the idea of banning fins. And again, also, could you also reconfirm that we are talking not about a shark being fished on a beach, and if the fins, particularly the fins, not any other part of the shark would be cut off. Can you reconfirm that this is really solely on the fins and the stockpiling? Sorry, thank you.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Right. It is solely the fins, the detached fins specifically. So, you're in possession of a whole shark, that is okay. And then, in terms of stockpiling, it's just there's no sure way to track the origin of all shark fins that enter the market. Stockpiling, you come across, you know, a ton -- a ton of fins, and it's difficult to ensure they're coming from legal and sustainable fisheries. Shark fins sold in the U.S. largely do not come from U.S. fishermen. Most shark fin imports into the U.S. come from China in Hong Kong, which imports fins from 80 countries for processing, including countries that have no bands on finning or very lax restrictions. So, this is really a global issue, and we're tryin' to get Connecticut to take a stand here.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): And, you know, the conservation aspect of the federal law, and I think international law as well, to not stockpile fins, I think it's regarding the space -- or the available space on a fishing vessel because if --?

180 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

KATHRYN KULLVERG: The question is stockpiling, right. So, some of these smaller vessels, the fins are worth so much more than the rest of the shark. So, if you have a small amount of space on your boat, they're going to stockpile a ton of fins, which are significantly smaller, and then dump the rest of the shark overboard, often while it's still alive. So, that's why they do take the fins and dump the rest of the carcass overboard.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): So to make room --

KATHRYN KULLVERG: For all the fins.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): So definitely not conservation or sustainable activity. Okay.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Correct. Yep. Definitely a conservation issue. A quarter of all shark and ray species are threatened with extinction. So, this is a critical issue.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gresko.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. In your analysis of this, is the shark finning industry getting more popular, or is it over time the tradition of shark fin soup is kind of waning, or are we just holdin' even?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: You know, we are seeing that consumers are more aware. Thirteen states have banned the trade in shark fins. Our international arm, HSI, Humane Society International, they're working to educate folks across -- globally across 181 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the world. Official banquets, I believe, in Hong Kong, they no longer serve shark fin soup. So, consumers are becoming more aware. So, we do need to take a stand here in the States as well.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): So, 'cause as you know, everything is driven financially.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Correct. Correct.

REP. GRESKO (121ST): So, if there wasn't a market for it, it wouldn't be happening. And, my last question is, everybody in the room here is -- is supportive of the idea. Let's say the bill passes with the amendments and it becomes law here in the state of Connecticut, if I'm doing this and I’m unscrupulously enough to do this, how is this law gonna stop me from doing this? I mean, what potentially can Connecticut expect if we pass this bill? I mean, because if somebody's gonna do this, they're gonna do it whether Connecticut says you shouldn't be doing it, since it's federal law already.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Sure. So, there's the practice of finning, which is prohibited under federal law. The possession of shark fins is not prohibited by federal law yet. There is a current federal bill pending. And then, to answer your question more, Connecticut needs to take a stand because as other states surrounding Connecticut pass this -- enact this law, Connecticut will become more of a hub for the trade in shark fins, and other states surrounding Connecticut have passed this legislation or are working on it currently.

182 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the commercial fishing industry made it clear this morning that this will have an effect on the commercial fishing industry here in Connecticut in that the fin is part of the value of the fish, and so can you imagine any way that they would recover that loss?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: So, our -- we believe that this will have a very minimal economic impact, less than one percent of all the fish caught in Connecticut in 2016 were sharks, and then a fin is even a smaller part of that shark. So, we feel like this would have a very minimal impact and greatly protect sharks worldwide.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): And through you Mr. Chairman, did you say that there are states around us that have enacted this language?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Correct.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): And which are those?

KATHRYN KULLVERG: So, I do have a full list here: Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware and Maryland, and Pennsylvania and New Jersey have pending legislation.

SENATOR MINER (30TH): Thank you.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Thank you.

183 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much for coming to testify.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Thank you for your time.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you for your time and your patience. So, we are moving on to Senate Bill Number 20, AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPORT, SALE, AND POSSESSION OF AFRICAN ELEPHANTS, LIONS, LEOPARDS, BLACK RHINOCEROS, WHITE RHINOCEROS, AND GIRAFFES. And, we will hear from Nicole Rivard. Welcome.

NICOLE RIVARD: Hello.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thanks for your patience.

NICOLE RIVARD: Hi, I'm Nicole Rivard from Friends of Animals, and I'm here on behalf of Friends of Animals and our 6,000 Connecticut members to support SB 20. Also, I just wanna thank you for raising the legislation. Connecticut actually does not have clean hands when it comes to pushing Africa's big five, elephants, lions, leopards, rhinos, and giraffes, to extinction. The state is actually supplying customers to the trophy hunting industry, which Fish and Wildlife Service admits it can't monitor abroad.

From 2005 to 2015, Connecticut residents killed 59 leopards for their trophies. Connecticut residents also killed six elephants, and from 2005 to 2016 residents killed 39 lions and one giraffe and imported their trophies. The communities that have been issued the most permits are Greenwich, North Haven, Norwalk, Berlin, Stamford, Westport, Westin, 184 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

Easton, Southington, and Middletown. When you put a price tag on threatened, vulnerable, and endangered animals, you send a mixed message about whether or not they need to be protected at all, and that's detrimental to actual conservation. We feel that shooting animals full of bullets does not increase their population or expand their habitat in Africa. Trophy hunters are poachers with permits. That's why we support SB 20. It would ban the importation, sale, possession, and transportation of Africa's big five and their body parts in the state.

These species are already fighting for their lives because of poaching in Africa and habitat loss. While we also support a federal ban that's being introduced in May, we feel these animals can't wait. So, it's crucial for states like Connecticut to take action because we feel current federal law is not protective enough. In 2015, Fish and Wildlife Service listed two lion subspecies as threatened and endangered under the Endangered Species Act, but the listing continues to promote trophy hunting because it allows for the importation of the body parts of the threatened lion species.

And also, while the 2016 near-total ban on trade in African elephant ivory actually looks pretty good on paper, it still allows for two sport-hunted elephant trophies per hunter, per year, and giraffes currently have no protection under U.S. law. The only difference between poachers and trophy hunters is wealth and public perception. Poachers kill to make a buck, but well-heeled trophy hunters kill for bragging rights and prizes. And actually, the newest data reveals that trophy hunting is economically useless. Most of the money goes to 185 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

trophy hunting operators and outfitters and government agencies in Africa, many of which are corrupt. The most recent study reveals that a measly three percent of expenditures actually goes back to African communities, but because of the corruption, trophy hunters could actually be funding organized crime and poaching, according to those on the front lines. So lastly, if the reason for trophy hunting is conservation, but it's actually not contributing to conservation, we feel it's time for Connecticut to stop supporting this useless industry. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you for your testimony. Do any committee members have any questions? Okay. I think -- I guess we're all set.

KATHRYN KULLVERG: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you very much. So, we are on to the final bill of the afternoon. That would be Senate -- excuse me, House Bill Number 5394, AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRADE OF IVORY AND RHINOCEROS HORN IN THE STATE. And Kevin Tulimieri, you have been very patient. You've been here all day, sir. I commend you.

KEVIN TULIMIERI: Well, thank you very much Chairman, Co-Chairman, Representative Miner and all of the members of the Environment Committee. It's been an interesting day, and it's always great to see you guys at work. And this is, I believe, my fourth time being here to testify on ivory legislation in Connecticut. We've been here time and time again. Let me back up a little bit. My name is Kevin J. Tulimieri. I am a historian, 186 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

researcher, and genealogist, and I work for Nathan Liverant and Son Antiques. That was established in 1920 in Colchester, Connecticut, and Arthur Liverant, our principal, could not be here today, but he did submit written testimony, and I submitted my own written testimony as well.

We are here first to say, of course, we abhor the illegal poaching and the destruction of endangered species. We are also here to support a inclusive and responsible ivory legislation. We've been here from the beginning supporting that goal. However, this bill, as it is written, as was mentioned by Brandy Culp, the curator from the Wadsworth Atheneum, has a couple of serious flaws in it. Line 33, as was mentioned, which mentions an ivory as part of an antique, and lines 36-42, which include the wholly or primarily qualification. Those qualifications are arbitrary and meaningless. If an object is an antique, it should be protected, regardless of the scope -- of the content of that ivory. I have here a picture of a beautiful ivory carving. It was carved between 1630 and 1650 in South Germany or Austria. It's at the Wadsworth Atheneum, and I would suggest it's one of the prizes and perhaps even the most significant artifact at the Wadsworth Atheneum. It was made by an unknown carver, the master of the Saint Sebastian Carving Group, and as an antique dealer and researcher, my next house call will include that ivory that will identify this carver. So, that's a hope of mine that this ivory carver could be identified. If this legislation goes forward, that piece of ivory would be made illegal. My actions would be criminal, and the identification of that carver will remain unknown. This is art. This is art history. These 187 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

are important aspects of the goal of every research historian, antique dealer, collector, and curator.

Along those lines, there is a great misconception. It is absolutely possible to identify antique ivory. That is the job of every curator, every antique dealer, every collector. I carry with me a magnifying glass, and I use it to identify shrinkage, wear, and patina. Those are the three categories that I use to identify that. So that notion that you can't tell so you have to ban this whole group of artwork is absolutely false.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, sir. I’m gonna open it up to questions from committee members. Representative Dubitsky. REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, you're telling us that you can tell when ivory is old?

KEVIN TULIMIERI: Yes, indeed. Yes. Ivory contains a high percent of moisture, and with any living material, ivory would -- we use those three categories of shrinkage, wear, and patina that come with age. I actually brought with me today a miniature portrait on ivory that is painted, and this one happens to be cased. So, is it primarily ivory? No, right now it has a case on it. However, this one has no case. So, this one would be illegal, and the other one would be acceptable under this legislation, which we think is false. If I use my magnifying glass, and I look at the edge of this piece of ivory, this absolutely shows wear, patina, and age that will not be present in a piece of modern manufactured ivory. It's just a simple fact of really physics, and it's the investigation and 188 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

the tools of -- of any known educated person in the field to identify that. That's what makes this piece valuable. That's what makes a piece that's modern a fake, a reproduction to be less valuable.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Other questions? Representative Michel.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Thank you, Chair. Thank you for testifying today. I'm just gonna make sure I'm asking the question properly. Would you say that the difficulty enforcement would have to -- maybe you can tell, but enforcement might have more difficulties than you to tell the age of ivory? Wouldn't you tell that that's kind of what would enable illicit trade?

KEVIN TULIMIERI: I think there's a false assumption there. If someone's going to be enforcing the law and identify the difference between antique and modern ivory, they better know what they're enforcing because that's the responsibility of the enforcement official to learn those differences. They are absolutely verifiable.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Okay, but I think it's been mentioned in the past that it is -- it has been difficult for enforcement. So, if the fact is that it is difficult for enforcement to -- to check on the age, then would it not, theoretically in that case, would it not encourage or not deter illicit trade?

189 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

KEVIN TULIMIERI: Hmm, I'm not quite sure I understand your question or your point because there is officials that are enforcing the law. That's what they do. And, if they're unaware of what they're enforcing, then they should find someone that's aware.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): Okay. Thank you for your comment. I also would like to add that probably -- we'll definitely work on more wording or different wording for this legislation, but I do think that taking out line 33 and I think I believe it's 36-42 would just make this a useless bill. That's my opinion.

KEVIN TULIMIERI: Well, I would disagree because I believe that if you can identify an object as antique, then there is no qualification of wholly or primarily that makes it not an antique.

REP. MICHEL (146TH): I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

KEVIN TULIMIERI: You're welcome. Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): Thank you, Representative. Representative Gresko, do you have a question? [background talk] Okay. Anyone else have a question? No other questions? Okay. Thank you, sir, for your testimony and for your patience today.

KEVIN TULIMIERI: Thank you.

REP. DEMICCO (21st): So, that is the end of the signup list. Is there anybody else in the hearing room who would like to testify on any of the bills 190 February 15, 2019 nn ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 11:00 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING

that has not had an opportunity to do so? This is your last chance. Okay. I will now close the public hearing, and I thank you all for your attendance and your contribution and your patience. Have a good weekend.