Remarks of Gerald P. McCarthy, Executive Director, Virginia Environmental Endowment

Virginia Environmental Assembly, The College of William & Mary in Virginia October 5, 2002

"A New Budget for Virginia's Environment"

Last February at the Garden Club of Virginia's Legislative Forum I lamented the fact that Virginia spends barely a penny of every tax dollar to protect the quality of our environment. I suggested then that it might be time to "put your 2¢ in" and seek as much as a doubling of the natural resources budget by the time Governor Warner's term ends.

It is remarkable what a popular idea that is turning out to be. So, today I have been asked to give you an update on what has happened to it since last winter, outline the nature of the task at hand, and suggest a possible course of action.

To his great credit, Secretary Murphy has embraced the idea and clearly sees the opportunities it might afford to fulfill the state's role as steward of Virginia's natural resources. If we all are able to help him transform this vision into a feasible plan, an integrated strategy, and real budget increases, then we would have much to celebrate.

We have learned from the recent U. S. Census that Virginia ranks 50th - last!-in the nation in spending for natural resources, at about $10.00 per person per year. You may also have heard that last year Virginia's park system ranked first while also spending the least of any state.

Now, if Virginia could be judged the "best in the country" at conserving and protecting its natural resources across the board, while simultaneously spending the least of any state in order to do so, I would lead the cheers. But I do not think that is the case.

There is too much that is not happening and plenty of what is happening has not changed in decades - such as "permitting" not preventing pollution, and the parochial system of making land use decisions that affect the environment, the road system, the schools, sewers, and other public infrastructure without any requirement to assure their adequacy and compatibility.

If the 19th Century was about "pollution at will," and the 20th Century was about permits to discharge, the 21st Century is the one where we finally adopt prevention of pollution, conservation of natural resources, and protection of ecosystem health as the new imperatives driving the state's role in natural resources management. This fundamental change in our knowledge of how the natural world actually works suggests new approaches and investments will be necessary to implement these responsibilities.

A 20th Century budget is not adequate to the realities of 21st Century stewardship - neither in numbers nor priorities. Isn't it time that we got on with the job of developing such a new budget?

In the face of the state government's fiscal difficulties we have the real prospect that investment in natural resources may actually decrease in the months ahead. Oddly enough, it is precisely this moment that I think we should be laying the plans to increase the Commonwealth's investment, and to do so by making the case for that increase better than has ever been done before, while also insisting on real performance and results for those bigger investments.

So, one thing to do right now to increase spending is to mobilize your members to vote for the Parks and Natural Areas referendum on November 5th. If we fail to pass the referendum, we will have less momentum for the funding campaign to increase the natural resources budget in the years ahead.

Article XI of the State Constitution states the Commonwealth's policy for natural resources. Policies, if they are effective, require plans that specify programs, projects, people, and budgets, all of which add up to produce results.

The first thing they teach you in Public Administration schools is that "budget is policy." This is a prime principal. If you do not understand this, you will never understand how public policy is made and actually works.

The priorities of the government are expressed in its budget. In terms that anyone can understand, this means "Follow the money!"

While promises and agreements for new policies on saving the Bay, providing safe drinking water and cleaning the air are helpful, the real help lies in getting the money to do these things.

By that measure, conservation and protection of natural resources is a low priority of the state government.

Even though the Constitution of Virginia says that it shall be the Commonwealth's policy to protect its atmosphere, lands and waters from pollution, impairment or destruction, the biennial budget, the real policy document, suggests otherwise.

Just look at the funding for land conservation, water resource management, "brownfield" redevelopment, environmental education, and in general the implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 2000, and the Total Maximum Daily Load Program. They are priorities in word, but not in deed, because they get little money.

So, how do you turn priority words into money and deeds?

Planning is essential. Not "state planning" or "central planning" by the state, but planning used in the sense of management actually developing plans for doing the 21st Century job and persuading the powers-that-be to provide the money to do it. Let me illustrate, because this is important if one ever expects to get the budget increased.

What is the plan for conserving and protecting the quality and quantity of the state's water? There is a list of "impaired waters," all right, but how does that lead to clean streams? What stream segments this year, next year, the year after, are going to receive sufficient attention that their quality actually improves? Who is responsible for that, who is accountable? Where are the specific plans to do this important work?

A requirement for water resource management planning has been around for three decades. How is that one coming along?

What about so-called "watershed management plans" or "surface water management" plans. What is the plan for making these potentially useful devices into something that is actually used by decision makers at the state or local level?

Who is responsible for detailing, monitoring, and insuring the integrity of the ecosystems that sustain us? Clean water is good for business, good for tourism, and good for all of us. Water sustains life! So does the air we have to breathe. Ecosystem integrity is critical to the functioning of both our economic and ecological health. We should be making this case to monitor, conserve, and protect these ecosystems, and so should the state.

Instead we take the easy way too often. Fees generate money to write permits to allow a seemingly never-ending discharge of wastes into the state's streams, but where is the money for actually improving the quality of the state's waters? One has to wonder at the wisdom of perpetuating the permit system by making the financing of its operation more and more dependent on the selling of permits. Leading industries in this state, large and small, are already saving millions of dollars by eliminating and significantly reducing discharges. Why aren't such environmental management systems and pollution prevention programs getting the kind of financial support that the 20th Century permit system does?

What is the plan for dealing with the consequences of "Nonattainment" status in various regions of the state? An effective plan will need to involve not just DEQ and many localities but the Secretary of Transportation and VDOT too.

If money is indeed the real indicator of an agency's priorities, it behooves us to examine the sources of that money and the uses (priorities, if you will) to which it is put. As seen in the numbers, what are the real priorities for natural resources conservation?

Without plans for this new century's realities, it is going to be difficult to get much of a budget.

Recently I have learned how differently planning for a 21st Century transportation system is compared to the natural resource agencies. For one thing, they take transportation planning seriously. They have a plan, and believe me, they follow it.

While they have had some accounting problems and cost overrun problems in recent years, their planning process generally works well, and it is about to get much better. There are lessons to be learned from that.

VDOT has a Six Year Plan. It is the focus of their existence and of all the constituents they serve. It is to their building a healthy transportation system what a similar plan could be to our maintaining healthy ecosystems. Let me mention a few key items about it:

First, it is statewide, but also particular to every jurisdiction in Virginia. There is something for all of them.

Second, it is the product of deliberate interactions between the agency and every locality in the state.

Third, the Six Year Plan truly is the policy and budget document for the agency. That is where the vast majority of the money it spends can be found. The leadership makes a real connection between what the agency stands for and what it spends its money on.

If the natural resources budget is to be increased, the agencies - and their supporters - must do a better job of making both their plans and their case.

So, "How can we get more money in the current fiscal climate?" After voting for the Parks & Natural Areas bond, what next?

I would suggest that we can help the Secretary to develop a clear and compelling case for the funds.

This case must be premised on actively conserving and protecting Virginia's remarkable natural endowments. Is all we want that agencies go on reacting to pollution after the fact, reacting to a crisis in water resources management, or reacting to the pollution and resource transformations of growth pressures? That is necessary, but hardly sufficient to fulfill the Constitutional mandate in the 21st Century.

For the fact is that "Conservation of the environment" is one of only two subject-matter areas in the state constitution. (The other is education. The rest provide for the rights of citizens, the mechanics of government, and taxation and finance.) Surely, then conservation was meant to be an important priority. Not just a reaction to all else.

However, the effort to get the agencies the money to do the job they have been given must insist on specific plans and annual objectives that we can use to build support, and so that they can have specific funds appropriated to accomplish each one. You can't expect one without the other.

For example, there are numerous goals and objectives in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Each of those presumably has some part of the natural resource agencies responsible for making it happen. It seems elemental for effective management that those tasks would be spelled out, assigned to real people, and funded by actual dollars. No one is likely to support more money without specific plans for how it will be spent - i.e., a clear strategy, transparent plans, accountability, and results are the keys to larger budgets in this new century. From now on, the real cost of doing the job must be clear.

As some of you may have heard, the Endowment recently made a grant to the Virginia Office of the League of Conservation Voters Educational Fund to help develop an "assessment of the feasibility" of doubling the natural resources budget by the time Governor Warner leaves office. It has three key elements:

First is to get the numbers straight. We have heard that natural resources receives less than one penny of every dollar in taxes paid to cover the state budget. We must know exactly which agencies are spending precisely how much money in which programs to accomplish what results.

This information would allow us all to "follow the money" and see just where it comes from and what the agencies actually do with it. With that baseline spelled out, it will easier to decide how to add to it.

In addition to delineating the current spending, we also want to learn what it will cost to do those things that are currently unfunded or barely funded, such as those items I mentioned a few moments ago, and others.

We need more than estimates, too. We must have a very good grip on what it will actually cost to accomplish specific results. Otherwise, policies, needs, and promises without specific plans and budgets are little more than wishful thinking.

It will take a collaborative effort among a wide group of constituents - not just the environmental groups - to reach a consensus about what the real priorities for natural resources will be in the years ahead. The absence of such a consensus about land conservation, water resource management, and brownfield redevelopment is surely one of the reasons they don't get much money.

Most of you in this audience understand why they are important programs that need more support, but perhaps I am only suggesting the obvious to you that you need to make a priority out of enlisting a diverse and powerful group of allies for your hopes to be realized.

As part of that effort, the second part of the assessment is to sound out legislators. Legislative Forums will be held in conjunction with the Virginia Conservation Network, to educate key legislators throughout the state about the situation and to gauge their support for this campaign. It is important both to explain what we learn this fall, and to listen and learn in turn what legislators have to say to that.

The third element is to learn what messages effectively move policymakers and citizens. This is called "message research." "Put your 2¢ in" is a catchy phrase and may have usefulness in the years ahead. But we need more specific language to communicate clearly and compellingly the need and the benefits to the right decision makers --and to the public -- the hopes, plans, and results we are after.

In conclusion, the future of Virginia's natural resource budget is directly related to the development of plans, the assignment of responsibilities, and the expectation of results that benefit all Virginians in the new century. Agencies, constituents, and policymakers must all work together to get such a result.

If we are serious about doubling the amount invested by the Commonwealth in the management and protection of Virginia's natural resources, then we need to make the case, and build support across a wide constituency.

To help do so, I suggest that discussion of such a "strategic plan for natural resources management in the 21st Century" would make a useful focus for next April's "Environment Virginia" Conference at VMI. This, as you know, is the premier gathering of people working to improve Virginia's environment. Last Spring over 600 people participated. Next Spring we need every one of them involved in building a better budget for environmental conservation. You cannot afford not to be there.

The Governor just approved a strategic plan for technology. The full strategic plan, five months in the making and over 125 pages in length, addresses Governor Warner's technology imperatives, Secretary Newstrom's initiatives to support those imperatives, and specific agency projects, which implement the initiatives. The plan was released last week during the Annual Commonwealth of Virginia Information Technology Symposium (COVITS), also held each year at VMI.

With the results of the LCVEF work due later this fall, it would seem timely to undertake a similar strategic planning process to conserve and protect our Commonwealth's natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction.

Thank you for your kind attention.