Regular Session - April 13, 1994
2484
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ALBANY, NEW YORK
10 April 13, 1994
11 12:49 p.m.
12
13
14 REGULAR SESSION
15
16
17
18 SENATOR HUGH T. FARLEY, Acting President
19 STEPHEN F. SLOAN, Secretary
20
21
22
23
2485
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senate
3 will come to order. Senators will please find
4 their seats.
5 Please rise for the Pledge of
6 Allegiance to the Flag.
7 (Whereupon, the Senate joined in
8 the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
9 Today, in the absence of visiting
10 clergy, we will bow our heads for a moment of
11 silent prayer.
12 (Whereupon, there was a moment of
13 silence.)
14 Secretary will begin by reading
15 the Journal.
16 THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
17 Tuesday, April 12. The Senate met pursuant to
18 adjournment. Senator Farley in the chair upon
19 designation of the Temporary President. The
20 Journal of Monday, April 11, was read and
21 approved. On motion, Senate adjourned.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Hearing
23 no objection, the Journal will stand approved as
2486
1 read.
2 The order of business:
3 Presentation of petitions.
4 Messages from the Assembly.
5 Messages from the Governor.
6 Reports of standing committees.
7 We have a report. Senator
8 Present, shall we read it?
9 SENATOR PRESENT: Yes.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
11 Secretary will read the report of a standing
12 committee.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl from
14 the Committee on Agriculture reports the
15 following bills directly for third reading:
16 Senate Bill Number 4102A, by
17 Senator Nozzolio, an act to amend the
18 Agriculture and Markets Law.
19 4753, by Senator Cook, an act to
20 amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
21 7544, by Senator Kuhl and others,
22 Agriculture and Markets Law, in relation to
23 agricultural assessments, reported with
2487
1 amendments.
2 5745, by Senator Kuhl and others,
3 Agriculture and Markets Law and the
4 Environmental Conservation Law.
5 7546, by Senator Kuhl and others,
6 Agriculture and Markets Law.
7 7547, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
8 amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
9 And 7548, by Senator Kuhl, an act
10 to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
11 All bills reported directly for
12 third reading.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: All
14 bills are reported directly for third reading.
15 Senator Present.
16 SENATOR PRESENT: Would you
17 recognize Senator Larkin, please.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
19 Larkin.
20 SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President.
21 There will be an immediate meeting of the Local
22 Government Committee in Room 332.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The
2488
1 Local Government Committee will be meeting in
2 Room 332 as of now.
3 Reports of select committees.
4 Communications and reports from
5 state officers.
6 Motions and resolutions.
7 Senator Nozzolio.
8 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr.
9 President. On page 7, I offer the following
10 amendments on behalf of Senator Seward to
11 Calendar Number 269, Senate Print 6749.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
13 Amendments received. The bill will retain its
14 place.
15 We have two substitutions. The
16 Secretary will read them.
17 THE SECRETARY: On page 4 of
18 today's calendar, Senator Goodman moves to
19 discharge the Committee on Judiciary from
20 Assembly Bill Number 619 and substitute it for
21 the identical Calendar Number 556.
22 On page 5, Senator Lack moves to
23 discharge the Committee on Judiciary from
2489
1 Assembly Bill Number 10817 and substitute it for
2 the identical Calendar Number 564.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
4 Substitutions are ordered.
5 Are there any other motions on
6 the floor?
7 Seeing none, Senator Present.
8 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President.
9 Let's take up the noncontroversial calendar,
10 please.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
12 Noncontroversial, page 7.
13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
14 248, by member of the Assembly Connelly,
15 Assembly Bill Number -
16 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay
18 that bill aside.
19 THE SECRETARY: On page 10,
20 Calendar Number 354, by Senator Cook, Senate
21 Bill Number 3558, an act to amend the Public
22 Health Law.
23 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside.
2490
1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it
2 aside.
3 THE SECRETARY: Calendar number
4 394, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Bill Number
5 6580A, an act to amend the Penal Law, in
6 relation to deleting gender classifications.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read
8 the last section.
9 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
10 act shall take effect immediately.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call
12 the roll.
13 (The Secretary called the roll.)
14 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 44.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The
16 bill is passed.
17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
18 432, by Senator Levy.
19 SENATOR GOLD: Explanation.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it
21 aside.
22 SENATOR PRESENT: Lay it aside
23 for the day.
2491
1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: For the
2 day, Senator Present?
3 SENATOR PRESENT: Yes.
4 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
5 434, by Senator Levy.
6 SENATOR PRESENT: Lay that bill
7 aside for the day.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay
9 that bill aside for today.
10 Senator Present, that's the first
11 time through.
12 SENATOR PRESENT: Let's try
13 controversial calendar.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
15 Controversial, page 7.
16 THE SECRETARY: On page 7,
17 Calendar Number 248, by Member of the Assembly
18 Connelly, Assembly Bill Number 3254A, an act to
19 amend the Public Health Law.
20 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
22 Gold.
23 SENATOR GOLD: That great
2492
1 gentleman from Staten Island, Senator Marchi,
2 laid this bill aside yesterday so we could get
3 some answer to a question I had, and it was
4 reported back to me by Senator Marchi that an
5 issue had been raised on the original print by
6 the trial lawyers. I notice that there is no
7 memo on the A print, and I assume there was some
8 amendment to take care of their concerns, and
9 based upon my conversations with Senator Marchi,
10 he now has me in this regrettable position where
11 I have to support his bill.
12 Last section.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read
14 the last section.
15 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
16 act shall take effect immediately.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call
18 the roll.
19 (The Secretary called the roll.)
20 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 44.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The
22 bill is passed.
23 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2493
1 354, by Senator Cook, Senate Bill Number 3558,
2 an act to amend the Public Health Law.
3 SENATOR GOLD: Explanation
4 requested by Senator Oppenheimer.
5 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President.
6 Can we lay that bill aside temporarily and stand
7 at ease.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay the
9 bill aside temporarily, and the Senate will
10 stand at ease.
11 (Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., Senate
12 was, at ease.)
13 (Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., Senate
14 reconvened.)
15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
16 Present.
17 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President.
18 Can we return to reports of standing committees,
19 please.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
21 Secretary will read a report of a standing
22 committee.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin
2494
1 from the Committee on Local Government reports
2 the following bill directly for third reading:
3 Senate Bill Number 7557, an act
4 to amend Chapter of the Laws of 1994, as
5 proposed in Legislative Bill Number S.6691,
6 relating to establishing a public library
7 district in the Town of Esopus, Ulster County.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: No
9 objection, the bill is reported directly for
10 third reading.
11 Senator Present.
12 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President.
13 Can we take up Calendar 354.
14 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
15 Explanation.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 354,
17 Secretary will read.
18 Explanation.
19 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
20 354, by Senator Cook, Senate Bill Number 3558,
21 an act to amend the Public Health Law.
22 SENATOR COOK: Mr. President. In
23 1905, when the City of New York was originally
2495
1 given the authority to construct reservoirs
2 outside its geographic boundaries, Legislature
3 gave to the city the authority to control its
4 watershed for purposes of guaranteeing the
5 purity of the water in the city.
6 There was good reason for doing
7 that at that time because there was no
8 Department of Environmental Conservation. The
9 Health Department was probably a desk in the
10 back of one of these rooms in the Capitol and,
11 in essence, there was no protection of the water
12 supply in the state from any state agencies.
13 That situation has dramatically
14 changed. We now have not only the two state
15 agencies that I mentioned but the federal EPA
16 that is regulating strongly a whole variety of
17 activities, Corps of Engineers who regulate; and
18 on top of that, in one section of the state and
19 one section only, we have the City of New York.
20 Now, what does this mean in
21 practical terms? It means that if someone in
22 that watershed wants to build a house, they not
23 only go to the local building inspector and get
2496
1 a local building permit, they have to also go to
2 the City of New York; and what is particularly
3 annoying about this is that the regulations that
4 apply to the people who live in the watershed
5 don't apply to the people who live in the City
6 of New York.
7 There is a more stringent
8 regulation, a higher standard that people are
9 held to if they live outside the city than if
10 they live inside the city.
11 This -- yes.
12 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
14 Gold.
15 SENATOR GOLD: May I just verify,
16 which Calendar Number is this?
17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 354.
18 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you.
19 Thanks.
20 (Laughter.)
21 SENATOR COOK: The point of this
22 bill, therefore, Mr. President, is to basically
23 say that the same rules will apply across the
2497
1 state. The same folks who guarantee the quality
2 of the water that we drink in Albany or in
3 Buffalo or Rochester or Syracuse or any place
4 else in the state will also apply to the City of
5 New York.
6 It will relieve, incidentally,
7 the City of New York of a large bureaucracy
8 which it currently funds to administer this
9 program Upstate. It should help their fiscal
10 situation. But beyond that, it makes it so that
11 people in the entire state live under the same
12 set of rules.
13 Just one other illustration of
14 how ludicrous this situation is. If you live in
15 a particular town -- let's take the town where
16 Senator Mendez happens to own her property. If
17 you happen to live on one side of the hill, you
18 have to get a building permit from the town and
19 you also have to get it from the City of New
20 York. If you live on the other side of the hill
21 in the same town, you don't have to get the City
22 of New York permit because you are in a
23 different watershed. The regulations on one
2498
1 side of the hill are entirely different than
2 they are in the other side of the hill even
3 though you are in the same town.
4 This law has created all kinds of
5 problems for us, and it is one which no longer
6 is necessary on the merits. The merits which
7 dictated it's adoption in the first place in
8 1905 no longer exist; and for that reason, the
9 law ought to be repealed.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
11 Leichter.
12 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Mr.
13 President. My colleagues. This is really a
14 most unfortunate, harmful bill. This bill
15 threatens the drinking waters of some eight
16 million people in the City of New York; and it's
17 for this reason that the current mayor as well
18 as the past mayor has strongly come out in
19 opposition.
20 Senator Cook, you say that New
21 York City no longer needs to manage the
22 watershed in the same manner as it was given the
23 authority early in the 20th century. On the
2499
1 contrary, that need is greater than ever
2 before. In fact, New York City's water has
3 degraded in quality, and we are now facing, we
4 in New York City but it will involve the whole
5 state, are now facing an order by the EPA that
6 unless we improve quality of our water, we will
7 have to build filtration plants.
8 The estimated cost -- estimated
9 cost of those filtration plants is $10 billion.
10 $10 billion. The only answer to avoid this is
11 to have better management of the watershed.
12 Now, I can understand that people
13 who live in or around the watershed and feel
14 that they are restricted from using, if you
15 will, pesticides or they can't have the sewage
16 disposal system that they have because it
17 affects the water supply resent it when other
18 people in the state may not be subject to those
19 same restrictions, but there is a reason for
20 it. The reason is the quality of the water
21 that's drunk by people in the City of New York,
22 and I think some of that water goes to Long
23 Island, also.
2500
1 So we like to pass bills that
2 help local legislators. I know people here want
3 to be helpful to you, Senator Cook, but I just
4 say to those of my colleagues here who say,
5 "Let's do one for Charlie -- well, you know, it
6 may not make too much sense, but he's a nice
7 guy." And you are. You're a terrific guy,
8 Senator Cook.
9 But, just think. You vote for
10 this bill, this bill becomes law, you are
11 threatening the water supply of New York City.
12 You are threatening the health of the people in
13 New York City. You are imposing on New York
14 City filtration plants.
15 Now, we already have a situation
16 where a filtration plant is going to be built in
17 the Bronx right near Senator Velella's district
18 in the Jerome Park Reservoir, where the City of
19 New York is under an order by the EPA and our
20 own health department that they have to build a
21 filtration plant. That's water that comes from
22 the Croton Reservoir, not your district,
23 Senator. But the Croton Reservoir water has
2501
1 degraded to such an extent.
2 That one filtration plant, if it
3 is built, is going to cost -- the estimate now
4 is $300 million, and I don't think there's
5 anybody here who thinks that if the estimate
6 today is $300 million that when that plant is
7 built it's going to cost a penny under $600
8 million. That is just one plant, besides
9 completely upsetting a community.
10 And the reason for that is
11 because of the growth around the Croton
12 Reservoir, all of the construction that has
13 occurred there, and also all the people who want
14 to keep weeds out of their lawns and want to use
15 pesticides and herbicides, and what have you,
16 and that runs off into the water.
17 We just have to preserve what is
18 so important, and that's drinking water, and it
19 does impose, Senator Cook, as you say, a certain
20 hardship on some people. I won't say hardships
21 but some restrictions. But we really have no
22 alternatives, and I would hope that everyone
23 would read the memorandum in opposition by Mayor
2502
1 Giuliani and it says -- let me just read parts
2 of it.
3 He says, "It is imperative that
4 the DEP" -- that's the Department of
5 Environmental Protection -- "remain in control
6 of the City's water supply system if the water
7 is to be kept at its current high level of
8 quality. This high water quality level is
9 maintained by five laboratories," and he goes
10 on.
11 If we lose the power to monitor
12 our own water, to control our own water, to see
13 that the watershed is properly managed and
14 maintained, then we're going to lose control
15 over the quality of the water in the City of New
16 York. Health Department, the Department of
17 Environmental Conservation, can not do it. They
18 don't have the same interest. They don't have
19 the same concern. They don't have the same
20 facilities and personnel.
21 This is vital for the City of New
22 York; and if you want to maintain the quality of
23 that water, then you want the person who drinks
2503
1 the water to see that the watershed is managed
2 by that -- by that person.
3 I also want to call to your
4 attention the memorandum in opposition by the
5 Environmental Protection Lobby and other
6 environmental groups. But it goes beyond some
7 of the usual battles that we have in this house
8 where members on the other side of the aisle
9 very often don't seem to be as concerned about
10 the stand of environmental organizations.
11 This is the Mayor of the City of
12 New York saying for God's sakes don't mess in
13 this way with the drinking water of the City of
14 New York. And as I told you the alternative is
15 horrendous, either as far as the quality of the
16 water or the fiscal implication if we have to go
17 to filtration.
18 And I think anybody who votes for
19 this bill who in this way endangers the City of
20 New York water supply, in this way imposes this
21 burden on the City of New York, you are really
22 treating the City of New York as if we are some
23 sort of a second rate citizen in this state not
2504
1 entitled to the same rights and protection as
2 other communities.
3 Don't do that to the people of
4 the City of New York. We are part of the
5 state. We're entitled to have good drinking
6 water.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
8 Dollinger, then Senator Oppenheimer. That's the
9 list I have.
10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
11 President. I will cede to Senator Oppenheimer
12 if I can keep the space behind her.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
14 Oppenheimer, you have the floor.
15 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, how
16 gallant. Thank you, Senator Dollinger.
17 I don't have too much to add to
18 the very fine presentation that was just made by
19 Senator Leichter. I would like to point out a
20 couple of things, however.
21 This is not just City of New York
22 water. I mean it is City of New York water, but
23 it is not just for the residents of the City of
2505
1 New York. About 90 percent of Westchester
2 County is on City of New York water, so we have
3 the same concerns as those residents in the
4 City.
5 Indeed, the water that we're
6 talking about from these reservoirs, the three
7 reservoir system, actually supplies 60 percent
8 of the water to the residents of the State of
9 New York. So we're talking about the majority
10 of the population of this state that once had
11 the pleasure of drinking very pure water; but
12 because of the development that has occurred in
13 the Hudson Valley, with a lot of second homes
14 being built, with lawns being taken care of,
15 protected with pesticides -- actually, it's not
16 protection. We don't see it that way any more.
17 But pesticides have caused
18 considerable pollution to the water supply and
19 road salt for keeping the roads clear in the
20 wintertime of ice. This has all contributed to
21 the contamination and the degradation of what
22 was once the most wonderful pure water probably
23 in the world. There were drinking tests done
2506
1 with New York City water versus bottled water
2 and waters that are costly, and people would say
3 that New York City water was at least the
4 equal.
5 These proposed -- these
6 restrictions which New York City wants to impose
7 in these proposed regulations are actually -
8 these restrictions are to comply with the new
9 federal requirements that impose very stringent
10 surface water quality standards that have been
11 defined in the EPA surface water treatment
12 rule.
13 This is under -- we're under
14 mandate from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
15 to move ahead, keep the water pure, and these
16 are the steps that have to be taken if we're
17 going to avoid what Senator Leichter discussed
18 earlier which is this filtration plant.
19 The reason to vote no on this
20 bill is, amongst other reasons, that progress is
21 being made in many of these communities in
22 working with New York City. I know my
23 community, Westchester County, does have
2507
1 restrictions that are additional that have been
2 put down by New York City, and we have to do a
3 balancing act here, but it is important to
4 remember that there is nothing more vital than
5 pure water.
6 And even if it does restrict some
7 of our options as far as our land use, it is
8 painful but it is necessary. The filtration is
9 just overwhelmingly costly if we have to move to
10 that, and we're not even sure that with
11 filtration that there are guarantees that the
12 water will be of a high enough quality.
13 So I think we have no choice but
14 to vote no on this bill, at least those 60
15 percent of New Yorkers who drink this water.
16 I should note that in past years
17 as many as 24 to 26 Senators have opposed this
18 bill, and I would mention their names: Connor,
19 Dollinger, Halperin, Jones, Leichter, Markowitz,
20 Mendez, Montgomery, Ohrenstein, Onorato,
21 Paterson, Smith, Solomon, Waldon; and on the
22 other side of the aisle: Marchi, Mega -- Marchi
23 Padavan, Spano, and Velella.
2508
1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
2 Dollinger.
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
4 President. Will the sponsor yield to one
5 question?
6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
7 Cook.
8 SENATOR COOK: Yes.
9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, just
10 so I understand this bill. Does the City of New
11 York actually own the reservoirs? Who actually
12 has title to the land?
13 SENATOR COOK: Senator, the City
14 of New York owns the reservoirs and owns a good
15 bit of the property around the reservoirs, and
16 the property that the city owns is not at
17 issue. These are regulations placed on
18 privately owned land outside that land which is
19 owned by the City within the watershed.
20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. On the
21 bill, Mr. President.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the
23 bill.
2509
1 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I guess as
2 Senator from Monroe County and Upstate New York
3 would probably at first blush have little
4 concern about this bill, but I'm concerned about
5 the trend and the effect it could have on the
6 City of Rochester and its water supply.
7 I think that's best exemplified
8 by telling a little story about Genesee Beer
9 which is one of the products that we produce in
10 the 54th Senate district. You may remember the
11 old jingle about Genesee Beer made from Hemlock
12 Lake water? Well, Hemlock Lake is the source of
13 the City of Rochester's water supply, supposedly
14 pure. They put out ads that are in vogue these
15 days that have crystal clear water from the
16 beautiful font of Hemlock Lake.
17 Well, what happened unfortunately
18 is that the city had title to the reservoir at
19 Hemlock Lake, and it had the ability to control
20 because it owned the property in the vicinity of
21 the lake but didn't have the ability to control
22 all of the watershed that flowed into Hemlock
23 Lake.
2510
1 And as a consequence of that, the
2 same kind of industrial pollution and farm
3 pollution, other types of pollution, that are a
4 part of our normal watershed problems flowed
5 into Hemlock Lake.
6 And, lo and behold, the New York
7 State Health Department came along and for about
8 15 years had a running debate with the City of
9 Rochester about the need to build a filtration
10 plant, which sure enough we had to do. We built
11 it right at the spigot, right at the door of
12 Hemlock Lake.
13 It cost, I believe, upwards of
14 $28 million to build that plant, and it's at
15 least my fervent belief that had the City of
16 Rochester not only owned the land but had
17 regulatory authority over the whole watershed,
18 we might not have had to build that plant.
19 So I think that this bill moves
20 in the direction that would take away from
21 municipalities the ability to control the water
22 supply and control the purity and the quality of
23 the water.
2511
1 The City of Rochester did not
2 have, at least to the best of my knowledge, the
3 extensive authority and watershed regulation
4 that the City of New York prevents.
5 Unfortunately, that was to the city of
6 Rochester's detriment. We've already had to pay
7 for a filtration plant.
8 My feeling is that if we were to
9 repeal the authority of the City of New York to
10 do this, New York City would much quicker move
11 down the road to needing a filtration plant and
12 more drastic and costly improvements.
13 So our experience in the City of
14 Rochester and the County of Monroe suggests to
15 me that we ought to honor the municipality's
16 ability to control their water supply and to
17 control and regulate all the development and all
18 the consequences outside the immediate area of
19 the watershed -- or excuse me, the immediate
20 area they own, but they should have the ability
21 to regulate the watershed, as well, so that they
22 can continue to have high quality drinking
23 water. It seems to me that this maybe one of
2512
1 those mandates because what we're going to do
2 is, if we take the authority away from the City
3 of New York, we're in effect going to hasten the
4 day when they're going to have to expend a
5 tremendous amount of money for further
6 filtration because we removed their regulatory
7 authority to manage the watershed.
8 I think it's a bad trend. I
9 think they're doing a good job now. They've got
10 the responsibility for it. They ought to do it
11 and continue to do it under authority from this
12 Legislature. We shouldn't take it away.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
14 Cook.
15 SENATOR COOK: Mr. President.
16 Several comments have been made, and I think
17 they ought to be clarified on the record.
18 Senator Leichter indicated that
19 he thought the City of New York should have the
20 same rights and protections of everybody else in
21 the state, and I agree with that. I think
22 that's precisely what we've provided in this
23 bill, that indeed the regulation in that area
2513
1 will be the same as any place else.
2 I am interested that the
3 projected cost of this filtration plant is now
4 set at $10 billion. About two years ago -
5 well, four years ago maybe, it started at four.
6 And the horror story gets a little worse every
7 time somebody repeats it. I guess that's what
8 happens when you keep telling things over. The
9 story gets worse. It went from four to five to
10 eight and now I guess we're at 10.
11 The point is that this is really
12 a cost shift. Some people don't want the
13 residents of the City to have to pay $500 toward
14 the cost of building a filtration plant, so the
15 way they avoid it is by shifting the cost to the
16 folks who live in the watershed. So that if you
17 are going to build a house in my district and in
18 a few of the other districts, you're going to
19 pay an extra $10,000 for your septic system that
20 is going to be on top of what you normally would
21 have had to have built in order to comply with
22 the same laws that everybody complies with
23 elsewhere in the state.
2514
1 Talk about pesticides, Senator,
2 there are stringent regulations about pesticides
3 already in the law, and you can't even apply
4 pesticides without having a license and without
5 answering to the Department of Environmental
6 Conservation about what you do with those
7 pesticide. Frankly, the regulation doesn't deal
8 with pesticides.
9 Sewage, I can tell you, Senator,
10 that the biggest bunch of sewage that goes into
11 the New York City reservoirs is out of sewage
12 treatment plants owned by the City of New York,
13 because they have been permitted to sit there
14 for years, basically nonoperational. They have
15 been exceeding the SPDES permits that they've
16 had for years, and they've been allowed to get
17 away with it. And, frankly, if they would clean
18 up their own act, they would solve any problem
19 that exists.
20 But, beyond that, the discussion
21 that you indicated erroneously that the water
22 supply was degrading, I think Senator
23 Oppenheimer cleared that matter up. I think she
2515
1 correctly said that the city does have a good
2 quality of water.
3 And it does have because in the
4 absence of these new stringent regulations that
5 the water quality in those Upstate reservoirs is
6 as good today, by the City's own admission, as
7 it was in the 1950s. There has not been a
8 degradation of the water quality.
9 There has been some degradation
10 within the Hudson Valley, within the Westchester
11 reservoirs; and, indeed, a filtration plant is
12 being built in that area to take care of that
13 problem that exists in that portion of the
14 system.
15 One of the reasons that the
16 regulations in the rest of the system will not
17 have a great impact is because there sits in the
18 middle of it the Catskill Park, and there are
19 some people up there that don't get regulated -
20 some things up there that don't get regulated
21 very good and they are called wild animals, and
22 those wild animals carry some of the organisms
23 that we worry about that can contaminate a water
2516
1 supply. And somehow the city has never been
2 able to get those deer and bear to stop causing
3 pollution in the streams, and those animals
4 carry the micro organisms that can only be
5 removed by filtration.
6 So all the regulations in the
7 world will not remove the organisms that cause
8 the problems in for example Milwaukee that we
9 read about. The point is -- and I'm not here
10 today to make this argument, but the point is if
11 the City ultimately is going to deal with those
12 organisms, it is going to have to filter its
13 water supply regulation or no regulation.
14 But the bottom line really is,
15 Mr. President, as the point gets made over and
16 over, we all live in one state. We all should
17 live under the same rules. I know of no other
18 place where one municipality has extra
19 territorial regulatory control over people who
20 reside in the rest of the state. We don't even
21 have a direct place that we can go for appeal
22 unless we go to a City agency and we don't live
23 in the City. We have no appeals process,
2517
1 because the City is the final judge of these
2 regulations.
3 That is why it is imperative, in
4 my mind, that we put these regulations where
5 they belong, leave them where they belong, with
6 state agencies rather than having the City
7 trying to regulate land use, which is really
8 what it's all about -- land use -- in the rest
9 of the state or in the major parts of the state
10 that constitute the Catskill and Delaware water
11 supplies.
12 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
14 Leichter.
15 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr.
16 President. I do want to correct something that
17 Senator Cook said which I think goes to the very
18 heart of the debate here.
19 Senator Cook, I regret to say
20 this, and respectfully, but for you to say that
21 there is no threat to the City's water supply is
22 just totally wrong, and the newspapers have been
23 full of stories about the efforts that we in the
2518
1 City of New York have had to make through our
2 Department of Environmental Protection to try to
3 improve our management, and we have been
4 directed to do that by the federal Environmental
5 Protection Agency.
6 Yes, the water is satisfactory
7 now, but the water is not as good as it used to
8 be, and it isn't because of animals. It's
9 because of all the other pollutants that Senator
10 Oppenheimer mentioned and Senator Dollinger
11 mentioned.
12 So you say that -- you know,
13 everybody in the state ought to be governed by
14 the same rules, but this has been in effect
15 since 1909. It was done at that time with an
16 understanding that there are special needs in
17 the state, and we recognize special needs. The
18 need here is the water supply, and I talked
19 about the City of New York. Maybe I was being
20 somewhat parochial, and Senator Oppenheimer
21 rightly pointed out that it involves
22 Westchester. I didn't know whether any of that
23 water goes to Long Island.
2519
1 And you said, well, the
2 filtration is exaggerated. It's only going to
3 cost $4 billion. Well, you know, four billion
4 is a good bit of change, Senator. But the
5 latest figures are -- and we know how the
6 construction costs generally tend to be higher
7 than we estimate -- are that it would be that
8 expensive. It would be an enormous burden not
9 just on the people in the City of New York and
10 Westchester -- maybe you don't care about
11 them -- it would eventually affect everybody in
12 the State of New York.
13 The management has to be done by
14 the City of New York because, very frankly, we
15 can not rely on the state to do it for us to the
16 same extent and with the same effectiveness as
17 if we do it ourselves.
18 We have a problem right now that
19 regulations that DEP has proposed as to how it
20 wants to manage the watershed and the Health
21 Commissioner saying, "I don't know whether we're
22 going to allow you to do that." I suspect part
23 of that represents your input, Senator Cook, and
2520
1 you work very hard for your constituents.
2 But in the long run, it isn't
3 going to help your constituents if you hurt New
4 York City and Westchester to that extent, and
5 that's why last time this bill came up, if I can
6 read this chart here, that it was not only most
7 of the members of this side of the aisle or
8 maybe all the members on this side of the aisle,
9 but I see that Senator Mega voted against it,
10 Senator Marchi, Senator Padavan, Senator Spano,
11 Senator Velella. Because of the importance, the
12 vital importance, as the Mayor has said of
13 allowing the City of New York to manage the
14 watershed to assure that we will have
15 appropriate drinking water.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
17 Dollinger.
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I rise just
19 to add one other comment to Senator Cook's
20 comments. I guess I'm troubled about the
21 concept of cost shifting, because it seems to me
22 if there is a cost shifting it goes the other
23 way around. Someone buys a piece of property
2521
1 knowing that it's subject to watershed
2 restrictions. They buy a price based on what
3 they anticipate they'll need to comply with the
4 watershed restrictions. The value of the land
5 is dependent on the fact that it's in a
6 watershed restricted area. The first thing they
7 want to do is get relief from the restrictions
8 because it will add value to the land. And it
9 seems to me that the attempt here is to add
10 value to the land in the vicinity of this
11 watershed or under the restricted area at the
12 cost of the citizens of the City of New York.
13 I see the cost shifting, frankly,
14 as going in the opposite direction, creating
15 value, transferring value to the watershed area
16 and taking away the value of clean and fresh
17 water to the people of the City of New York. I
18 think there is a cost shifting, but it's going
19 in the other direction.
20 SENATOR GOLD: Last section.
21 Slow roll call.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read
23 the last section.
2522
1 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
2 act shall take effect 180 days after it shall
3 have become a law.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Slow
5 roll call. Can I see five -- ring the bill.
6 Slow roll call.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Babbush
8 excused. Senator Bruno.
9 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
11 Senator Connor.
12 SENATOR CONNOR: No.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Cook.
14 SENATOR COOK: Yes.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Daly.
16 SENATOR DALY: Yes.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator
18 DeFrancisco.
19 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator DiCarlo.
21 SENATOR DiCARLO: No.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator
23 Dollinger.
2523
1 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada,
3 excused. Senator Farley.
4 SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Galiber.
6 SENATOR GALIBER: No.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gold.
8 SENATOR GOLD: No.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: How do
10 you vote?
11 SENATOR GOLD: No.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez,
13 excused. Senator Goodman.
14 (There was no response.)
15 Senator Hannon.
16 SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator
18 Hoffmann.
19 (There was no response.)
20 Senator Holland.
21 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
23 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
2524
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Jones.
2 (There was no response.)
3 Senator Kruger.
4 SENATOR KRUGER: No.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Jones.
6 SENATOR JONES: No.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
8 SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
10 (There was no response.)
11 Senator Larkin.
12 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
14 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leichter.
16 SENATOR LEICHTER: No.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
18 (There was no response.)
19 Senator Libous.
20 SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
22 (There was no response.)
23 Senator Marchi.
2525
1 SENATOR MARCHI: No.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marino.
3 (Response of "Aye.")
4 THE SECRETARY: Aye. Senator
5 Markowitz.
6 (There was no response.)
7 Senator Mendez, excused. Senator
8 Montgomery.
9 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nunula.
11 (There was no response.)
12 Senator Nolan.
13 (There was no response.)
14 Senator Nozzolio.
15 (There was no response.)
16 Senator Nozzolio.
17 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator
19 Ohrenstein.
20 (Response of "No.")
21 THE SECRETARY: No. Senator
22 Onorato.
23 SENATOR ONORATO: No.
2526
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator
2 Oppenheimer.
3 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: To explain
4 my vote.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
6 Oppenheimer to explain her vote.
7 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Actually,
8 it's less of an explanation than a correction.
9 The restrictions concerning land
10 use in the watershed area of the New York City
11 reservoirs dates back many years. The
12 restrictions concerning the reservoir in
13 Westchester which is the Croton reservoir goes
14 back to 1895, and the restrictions as far as the
15 Catskill and Delaware reservoirs goes back to
16 1906. So it isn't like these are newly-devised,
17 creative, potential solutions to a problem
18 that's just come up.
19 The need to protect the watershed
20 has been seen as an important consideration for
21 over a century now, and we have only until
22 December of 1996 from the EPA to prove that our
23 water can be protected through such restrictions
2527
1 on the watershed that would maintain the purity
2 of the water.
3 So I'm voting no, and I think
4 it's actually essential that we vote no in order
5 to maintain the purity of the water for 60
6 percent of the residents in our state.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator
8 Oppenheimer in the negative. Continue the roll.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
10 SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Pataki.
12 SENATOR PATAKI: Yes.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
14 SENATOR PATERSON: No.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Present.
16 SENATOR PRESENT: Aye.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
18 SENATOR RATH: Aye.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
20 SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator
22 Santiago.
23 SENATOR SANTIAGO: No.
2528
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Sears.
2 SENATOR SEARS: Yes.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
4 SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
6 SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
8 SENATOR SMITH: No.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Solomon.
10 (There was no response.)
11 Senator Spano.
12 SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator
14 Stachowski.
15 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator
17 Stafford.
18 SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator
20 Stavisky.
21 SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
23 SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
2529
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully.
2 SENATOR TULLY: Aye.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
4 SENATOR VELELLA: No.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
6 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
8 SENATOR WALDON: No.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
10 SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
12 Absentees.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
14 (There was no response.)
15 Senator Hoffmann.
16 (There was no response.)
17 Senator Lack.
18 SENATOR LACK: Aye.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
20 (There was no response.)
21 Senator Maltese.
22 SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator
2530
1 Markowitz.
2 (There was no response.)
3 Senator Nanula.
4 SENATOR NANULA: Aye.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nolan.
6 (There was no response.)
7 Senator Solomon.
8 (There was no response.)
9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY:
10 Results.
11 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 31. Nays
12 20.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The
14 bill is passed.
15 Senator Levy?
16 SENATOR LEVY: No.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: He
18 voted no.
19 Senator Hannon.
20 SENATOR HANNON: Mr. President.
21 Yesterday, I was away from the chamber on Senate
22 business, when there was a vote on Calendar
23 Number 396. And I would like to have the record
2531
1 reflects that had I been in the chamber at the
2 time that I would have been in the negative on
3 that bill.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The
5 record will state so. So state.
6 Any motions on the floor?
7 (There was no response.)
8 Senator Present.
9 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President.
10 No more house keeping, anything? The desk is
11 clear?
12 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I don't
13 see any.
14 SENATOR PRESENT: There being no
15 further business, I move we adjourn until
16 tomorrow at 11:00 a.m.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The
18 Senate will stand adjourned until tomorrow at
19 11:00.
20 (Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., Senate
21 adjourned.)
22
23