A state Senate proposal to impose a five-year ban on former legislators taking casino jobs triggered an uproar on Beacon Hill yesterday. Lawmakers resolved the issue eventually, but not before closing the doors and turning off the microphones. Sen. James Eldridge (D-Acton) and WGBH political reporter Adam Reilly join us.

Listen to the program.

A state Senate proposal to impose a five-year ban on former lawmakers taking casino jobs triggered an uproar yesterday by Democratic senators who abruptly broke off a heated public debate to rewrite the measure in secret.

An hour later, and with no further discussion, the Senate approved a watered-down, one-year restriction.

Lawmakers’ rationale for weakening the bill may be hard to explain outside the marble corridors of the State House: They said that a strong prohibition would only feed the public’s perception that lawmakers cannot be trusted.

“We’re creating a presumption that the people in this body cannot operate with integrity,’’ complained Senator Gale Candaras, Democrat from Wilbraham. “It’s bad law. It’s bad precedent.’’

But the Legislature has not been without its high-profile problems. The past three House speakers have been indicted; the most recent, Salvatore F. DiMasi, was sentenced this month to eight years in federal prison for political corruption.

The five-year ban was proposed by James Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, who argued in the public portion of the debate yesterday that the bill authorizing three casinos and one slot parlor should only be an economic development program for the state, “It should not be an economic bill for legislators.’’ He said a five-year ban would address any perception or public cynicism that legislators might be motivated by personal interest to support the casino bill.

Members of Senate leadership were already working the floor to urge a no vote on the amendment. But when they met unexpected pushback from legislators, they tried a different course, signaling that they would go along with the ban, even though they didn’t agree with it.

“We will support this amendment,’’ said Senator Stephen Brewer, a Barre Democrat and Ways and Means Committee chair, in angry remarks from the floor, “but I reject and resent its implications.’’ He said “98 percent’’ of all the people he has served with in the Senate have been hard workers who served honorably.

But as the debate continued to simmer and tempers flared, Senate President Therese Murray inexplicably slammed on the brakes and called for a recess, so Democrats could hash out their differences outside of public view.

When the closed caucus emerged, the five-year ban had been shaved to one year, though the change was not publicly announced before the vote. The Senate quickly passed the amendment 36 to 1. Debate on the entire casino bill continues next week.

“Most people don’t pay attention or understand the political process,’’ said Peter Ubertaccio, a Stonehill College political scientist who watched the debate yesterday. “But what people will understand is when a major political party goes into closed caucus and makes it easier for themselves to get jobs when they leave.’’

Legislators have tremendous power to influence private industry, Ubertaccio said, and the potential exists for them to profit personally from the decisions they make.

“People are going to perceive them as more corrupt because they have only put one year between themselves and jobs with the casino industry,’’ he said.

Senate Republicans, shut out of the private debate among Democrats, delighted in the inter-party dispute on the other side of the aisle.

“Nice to see a little passion here once in a while rather than a bunch of sheep,’’ said Senator Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, in comments to reporters. He said he favored the more severe five-year ban. “I sat next to Wilkerson for a while. I sat next to Marzilli.’’

He was referring to Dianne Wilkerson and James Marzilli who, along with Anthony Galluccio, left the Senate in disgrace amid a flurry of legal problems.

Republicans are outnumbered 36 to 4 in the Massachusetts Senate.

Brewer told reporters that a one-year ban is “the industry standard.’’ Five years, he said, was “an arbitrary number.’’ A casino bill passed by the House does not contain similar language; a conference committee would eventually have to reconcile the two bills.

After the vote, Murray defended her decision to usher her members into closed session to work out their differences. She said the same arguments the public heard on the floor were the arguments repeated in the private discussion.

Then why, she was asked, shouldn’t the public see that debate?

“I think they had a very hearty debate on the floor,’’ she said.

Following the vote, casino opponents were mum on what happened in the caucus. Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat and casino critic, said that she and several other senators made themselves available for interviews to account for their votes. “I think it’s a stretch to say this was done in secret,’’ she said.

Eldridge, the senator who started the whole debate, called the one-year ban progress.

He declined to say how his colleagues persuaded him to give up on the tougher language. “That’s part of the caucus process that is private,’’ he said.

By Katie Lannan
9/28/11

BOSTON — A local lawmaker’s push to create a cooling-off period before legislators can be employed by the casino industry led to a heated argument on the Senate floor Tuesday.

In the second day of Senate debate on a bill that would legalize casino gambling in Massachusetts, Sen. Jamie Eldridge proposed an amendment that would have prohibited legislators from getting a job with any gambling business for five years after leaving office.

Eldridge, the Acton Democrat, who represents Shirley, said this measure is crucial to prevent any appearance of conflict of interest, but some senators argued that lawmakers would take advantage of their position if no restrictions were in place, leading to increased cynicism among voters.

“One of the problems we have as legislators is to improve the perception of us without throwing ourselves and our colleagues and the government and democracy under the bus,” said Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst.

Eldridge said a cooling-off period would keep the public from thinking legislators sought to profit from the legalization of casinos.

“This is an economic development bill for the people of the commonwealth,” he said. “This is not an economic development bill for legislators.”

Some senators said that although they support the idea of a cooling-off period, they took offense at Eldridge’s reasoning.

“To have an implication that we are not people of

intelligence, integrity and commitment troubles me deeply,” said Sen. Stephen Brewer, D-Barre, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Sen. Gale Candaras, D-Wilbraham, dismissed Eldridge’s amendment as “just plain wrong-thinking,” though she later voted in favor of a modified version of the amendment.

Eldridge said the problem he was looking to solve was not a lack of integrity within the Legislature, but a lack of public faith.

“I know that each of us works hard each and every day, but the problem is the perception,” he said.

After about 20 minutes of passionate debate, Senate President Therese Murray called for a closed Democratic caucus, in which the limit on legislators taking gambling-industry jobs was reduced to one year from the original five years.

The redrafted amendment passed on a roll-call vote of 36-1, with Sen. Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport, voting against it. Changes to the amendment were not read before the vote.

The Senate rejected three other Eldridge amendments, including one that would have created a similar cooling-off period for gaming-commission members and one that would have required casinos to provide their employees with health-care benefits.

Debate on the gambling bill will resumeTuesday.

ACLU of Massachusetts Legislative Counsel Gavi Wolfe wrote the following guest blog.

Pop quiz: What little-known holiday, being celebrated across the world today, honors essential freedoms central to a healthy democracy? Why, it’s International Right to Know Day, of course!

Ok, so you’ve never heard of it.

Despite that minor detail, its core concept–freedom of information–affects the everyday lives of ordinary Americans. It’s the basic notion that we have the right to find out about the workings of our government–how well it’s working (and how it might be improved), whether the Big Dig was built safely, how government jobs and contracts are handed out, whether we’re using “enhanced interrogation techniques” that run afoul of the Constitution, or how police are trained to respond to suspicious birdwatchers.

The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its state counterpart, the Massachusetts public records law, are mainstays of public interest advocacy and investigatory journalism, from Globe Spotlight Team special reports to Herald gotcha gimmicks.

Unfortunately, the Massachusetts public record law is mightily in need of a tune-up. In practice, even when information is supposed to be public, people often face major obstacles to obtaining it. Agencies don’t always treat public records requests seriously; they know they will likely face no consequences for withholding information. And when an agency does respond, the law allows them to charge an arm and a leg for copies and basic information. The stories are legion of agencies charging prohibitive fees for information that is of concern to the public, fees that few requestors can hope to pay.

So, what’s a freedom-of-information-loving International Right to Know Day celebrant to do? Clamor for reform!

A pair of bills filed by state senator Jamie Eldridge and state representative Antonio Cabral point in the right direction. To turn the public records law–a good law in concept–into a meaningful law in practice, their legislation would do three exceedingly helpful things:

First, it would make records routinely available in electronic form. Put the info online and save everyone the headache… Send it as a PDF to the person who requested it and save agency staff time making copies, save money, and save the planet at the same time.

Second, it would lower the fees for records. It makes no sense to charge $.50 per printed page. The statute even allows agencies to charge a buck a page for some kinds of records, a fee that would make your local copy shop blush.

Finally, the bill would bring Massachusetts in line with the 2/3 of states and the federal government by letting courts award attorney fees when an agency unreasonably denies access to public records. If the keepers of public information in the Commonwealth are reluctant to share it with… the public!… then it’s clear they could use the same incentive as all those other jurisdictions.

This past weekend, more than 20 local newspapers published a joint editorial in favor of these reforms. From the Cape to North Adams, from Lawrence to Springfield, their message: Let freedom (of information) ring!

So, in honor of International Right to Know Day, go file your own public records request, or add your voice to the choir in favor of putting public information back in the hands of the public, where it belongs.

Maybe next IRK Day we’ll have a better law to celebrate.

September 26, 2011

By John J. Monahan

By all accounts, it’s been a booming decade for government secrecy.

And judging by the standing-room-only crowd at a Statehouse hearing last week on bills to reform Massachusetts’ public records law and put teeth in the state’s open meeting laws, public tolerance is reaching a boiling point.

A matter of trust is at the heart of the problem.

It’s not a question of whether the public has trust in government. Rather, it is a profound problem that government officials increasingly do not trust the people. Too often it appears they don’t trust the citizenry enough to let them read reports of what they are doing, what they are deciding and why, or how they are doing their jobs.

At the hearing, some citizens told stories of public officials’ improper refusals to disclose public records to cover up wrongdoing.

Some agencies and public officials try to discourage public disclosure by dragging their feet, ignoring mandatory deadlines and telling citizens to file lawsuits if they want the records so badly.

It often seems to some members of the public that there are endless obstacles to obtain public records.

The phrase “We the People” doesn’t mean much without a strong system to ensure that citizens know what the government is doing, argued Gavi Wolfe of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Wolfe and scores of others at the hearing said public officials face no consequences for illegally withholding public documents under Massachusetts law.

These days, many state and local agencies routinely respond to requests for documents with automatic denials or delays for internal reviews — despite required immediate disclosure under the current law.

Much of the hearing focused on excessive copying and search fees now being charged for records.

A records reform bill, killed by the House and Senate last year without much complaint from legislative leaders or the governor, is back before the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight, which held the hearing.

Gov. Deval L. Patrick and the leaders of the House and the Senate frequently talk about the value of transparency when it suits their agenda for selected programs, almost always to the public’s great benefit.

But when it comes to supporting the proposed record reforms, it has not been a top priority.

One fix proposed for the public records law — last revised almost 40 years ago when records were hand-written or typed out on machines — is to authorize courts to award legal fees to requesters when officials unreasonably or illegally deny access to public records.

The proposed changes would also force public officials to make more records routinely available in electronic form and force a reduction in costs charged to people seeking records.

The Senate chairman of the committee, Kenneth J. Donnelly, D-Arlington, questioned during the hearing whether police departments can really afford to have people spend time complying with citizen requests for public records. He mentioned a small layoff in a police department in his district to justify his concern.

Providing access to public records, however, remains a legal duty of police departments under the existing law.

His counterpart in the House, Committee Co-Chairman Rep. Peter V. Kocot, D-Northampton, was singing a similar tune, voicing worries that the cost of providing legally required public records at town and city halls would end up raising property taxes.

A move to tighten enforcement of the law, Kocot said, could represent “a serious cost” to cities and towns.

State Sen. James B. Eldridge, D-Acton, argued for passage of the bill. He said he was heartened to see so many citizens and organizations attending the hearing, but he has no way of knowing if the bill stands a chance this year.

“Unfortunately, it is getting worse,” he said of public records access. “I think you see more and more examples of state agencies and towns and cities denying basic information to the public and the media, and yet this is a time due to the advances in technology, this information can be provided instantaneously.

“I think it’s the perfect moment to move to this new standard and provide this information accessibly and efficiently,” the senator said. “If the information is formatted properly when first received by the agencies, it could actually be provided much cheaper by the cities and towns and state agencies. This will actually save money for the Commonwealth and the cities and towns.

“The more sunlight on the government process, the more likely that members of the public and the media will be able to find instances of corruption or expensive mistakes and make sure it doesn’t happen to begin with,” he said.

September 14, 2011
By John Monahan

Social worker, church and civic organizations yesterday unleashed a torrent of blistering criticisms and dire warnings over a controversial bill for three casinos and a slot machine resort that backers expect to be approved by the House this week.

Opponents rallied on the Statehouse steps in bright sunlight, warning over loudspeakers that the social ills and costs of expanded gambling will outweigh any benefits. They accused legislative supporters and Gov. Deval L. Patrick of gambling the well-being of future generations by opening the door to casinos.

“This is a bad decision on so many levels,” said Eva Valentine, president of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.

“Casinos in any community cannibalize small business,” she said, arguing casinos would make it harder for small restaurants, clothing stores and other small businesses to prosper and create jobs in cities and towns near casinos. “I can’t believe this is the most creative idea that has come up to solve our economic problems,” she said.

“Folks, gambling expansion on this scale is cruel, and it’s expensive,” warned the Rev. Laura Everett from the State Council of Churches. She said casinos will double the number of problem and addicted gamblers in the state, now are estimated to number 250,000.

James Driscoll, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference that represents the state’s Roman Catholic bishops, said any short-term economic benefits are outweighed by the long-term pitfalls.

“We are talking about individuals with addictions, bankruptcies, breakup of marriages, breakup of families, alcoholism, drug abuse, the list goes on and on,” he said. “Casinos and slots in Massachusetts can and will cause a new set of social and economic problems.”

More crime, pensions for a new group of regulators, an increase in problem gamblers and in suicide rates are all problems the state can expect if the bill is approved, said Mary Tufts, founder of Casino Free Massachusetts.

She used the retort Mr. Patrick relied on to rebuff his critics on the campaign trail when she said his support of casinos was in sharp contrast to the value he places on social justice and the “high, noble principles” he wrote about in his recent biography.

“Just words,” she said.

The criticisms piled up on the Statehouse steps while House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop, worked inside the building to line up rank and file support for the bill in a closed-door caucus of House Democrats.

Debate on the bill and 159 proposed amendments are set to begin today with a final vote possible by late tomorrow.

After blocking expanded gambling for decades, the House last year approved a casino and slot parlor bill on a 120-37 vote, only to see the bill rejected by Mr. Patrick, who opposed provisions for two slot parlors at race tracks.

The Senate last year approved the bill 25-15.

Mr. Patrick this year said he will go along with one competitively bid slot resort, in addition to three casinos.

Backers say the three, $500 million dollar casinos and a $125 million slot resort will create thousands of desperately needed jobs and create major new revenue source to help the state deal with its budget problems.

Three casinos would be licensed in three geographic regions of the state, one in Western Massachusetts, another in Central and Eastern Massachusetts and a third in Southeastern Massachusetts. A Native American tribe would be given preference to secure a license for the casino in Southeastern Massachusetts.

Opponents said despite last year’s votes they are still hoping the legislation will be rejected.

“My hope is that a light will go on inside this building and people will look up and recognize what’s happening here. This is a predatory industry that preys on people. Slot machines are the most addictive form of gambling on the face of the earth,” said Rebekah L. Gewirtz, of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

She said casinos will not add jobs but merely displace jobs from existing small businesses.

Another longtime opponent, state Sen. James B. Eldridge, D-Acton, said he will again vote against the bill when it gets to the Senate. He said he is concerned about impacts on communities around casinos and the impact on local theater and entertainment venues.

“I’m giving my best efforts to highlight the reasons why it is a bad bill for Massachusetts,” Mr. Eldridge said. While most backers support expanded gambling to create jobs and revenues, he said many are basing that support on conditions in the industry from four years ago, before the recession greatly reduced casino revenues in other states.

Former state Sen. Susan C. Tucker, who led Senate opposition to the bill before retiring last year, warned lawmakers a vote for casinos may come back to haunt them.

She said politicians who believe the public wants casinos may see a different reaction among voters when casino sites are actually developed.

“Wait until one is proposed near your district. Three times more voters oppose casinos if they are anywhere near them than support them in the abstract,” she said.

“It can be a career-ending vote,” Ms. Tucker said, adding that developers will face local citizen protests and lawsuits over casinos.

She said casinos will mostly hurt lower-wage workers.

“Casinos are the best mechanisms ever invented to take money out of the pockets of low-income people and ship it to out-of-state to billionaires,” Ms. Tucker said.

Natick-based Boston Scientific’s plan to cut up to 1,400 jobs underscores the need for better oversight of the tax breaks that businesses receive, state Sen. Jamie Eldridge said.

While the medical-device company hasn’t revealed if any of the jobs lost will be local, “If it’s determined Boston Scientific is laying off Massachusetts workers, I will be calling on Gov. Patrick to rescind all or some of its tax incentives,” Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said yesterday.

Eldridge co-sponsored a bill filed in January to “promote transparency and efficiency in economic development spending” after Evergreen Solar announced its plans to close its Devens facility, for which it received more than $30 million in grants and tax incentives.

The problem is that Massachusetts has created various tax credits, Eldridge said, but the state and communities aren’t gathering enough information about how companies are following through.

“Even the Department of Revenue doesn’t know if they’re living up to their promises,” he said.

Boston Scientific does not have a tax increment financing agreement with Natick, but it has received breaks from Marlborough on the promise of bringing 1,000 jobs to that city.

In 2006, Boston Scientific received a 20-year tax break on new taxes on its Boston Scientific Way properties in exchange for promises to make $96 million worth of purchase and renovation investments in the area and to employ at least 1,000 workers by June 2010. In 2009 and 2010, Marlborough officials determined the company wasn’t meeting its goals and lowered the benefits.

The state’s agreement to allow Boston Scientific to count contract employees as full-time workers in Marlborough paved the way for the company to pursue a similar deal in December in Quincy, where an expansion project is planned.

“Companies play communities against one another” for local breaks, Eldridge said. “If you don’t have a clear, unified standard everybody abides by, you get these private deals.”

William Buckley, chairman of Milford’s Board of Selectmen, said that although companies have to go through the local process first, the real money is in the state opportunities. He raised concerns about the oversight of tax increment financing in his town in 2005 and says the state has done better watching the deals.

“Anything calling for oversight of the TIFs is worthwhile,” he said, but even without the passage of legislation sponsored by Eldridge and state Rep. Carl Sciortino, “the state has stepped up its oversight.”

Changes made in the past two years have led to the creation of 2,475 new jobs, the retention of 8,978 existing jobs and the leveraging of $1.4 billion in private investment, Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Gregory Bialecki told a state Senate oversight committee this spring.

“At the same time, we have stepped up monitoring and enforcement actions,” he said. “To date, the administration has decertified 176 companies that don’t meet the (Economic Development Incentive Program’s) standards.”

In June, the Economic Assistance Coordinating Council, the branch of Housing and Economic Development that oversees tax-incentive programs on the state level, approved agreements for 13 projects, including an enhanced investment tax credit for eClinicalWorks in Westborough totaling $1.5 million.

The Legislature sets budgets and general rules for tax credits, but there are several state agencies, including the Life Sciences Center created in 2006, that review and award them.

The legislation Eldridge co-sponsored would require uniform reporting requirements and documentation that each criteria, such as job creation or salary and benefit levels for workers, is being met. Businesses would have to report annually for the life of the subsidy.

“Massachusetts taxpayers deserve to know if the nearly $2 billion we spend on tax breaks for big businesses are actually worthwhile,” Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, said in support of the bill when it went before the Joint Committee on Revenue in April.

The House version of the bill is under consideration by the Joint Committee on Revenue. The identical Senate version was sent to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies.

The committees have until next March to make a recommendation, but Eldridge hopes Boston Scientific’s news, on top of high-profile tax incentive beneficiary Fidelity Investments’ plan to move more than 1,000 jobs out of state, will spur his colleagues to put the bill on a faster track.

“Massachusetts spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year on economic development subsidies, and yet legislators, the administration and the general public often don’t know where the money is going,” he said.

In an effort to prepare children for career paths they have yet to choose and jobs that may not exist yet, not to mention making them well-rounded citizens, schools fill young brains with knowledge they may later find esoteric or irrelevant. Schools teach algebra, English literature, ancient history, modern geography and foreign languages more for their theoretical value than their practical application.

But students need practical knowledge as well, especially when it comes to personal finances.

Some students will borrow money to buy a car while still in high school. They need to know what interest is, and how to calculate how much interest payments will add to the sticker price. As soon as they hit college, they will be deluged with credit card offers many won’t know how to weigh. Most will end up borrowing money for college – the average student graduates owing $20,000 – and many will be surprised when the bill comes due.

Later, they may be expected to manage their retirement accounts, but few will have been taught anything about investment strategies. They will have to make decisions on insurance and mortgages – and we’ve seen in recent years how easy it is for people to make poor decisions when buying homes.

That’s why it is long past time Massachusetts incorporated financial literacy into the public school curriculum. We do no service to our children by sending them out into the world knowing all about geometry and history, but nothing about how to balance a checkbook.

A bill to remedy that omission is again moving through the state Legislature. Sponsored by Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, the bill would require the state Department of Education to develop standards and objectives for incorporating financial literacy into the K-12 math curriculum for all public schools.

The bill was approved unanimously by the Senate in the last session, but never came to the House for a vote. This week, the Education Committee approved the bill. It deserves a full vote in both chambers, the sooner the better. Consumer education should begin in grade school.

FRAMINGHAM —Four members of a panel at Framingham State University last night gave their pitch for a single-payer health care system in the state, saying it would streamline administration, make care more widely available and potentially save billions of dollars.

But not everyone was swayed, including one audience member who said a switch to single payer would limit access to health care.

In a single-payer system, a version of which was recently passed in Vermont, health care would be paid for by one entity, most likely the government but also potentially a private company. That single payer would be responsible for collecting money for health coverage, like through a payroll tax, and then pay for all state residents’ health care bills.

Framing last night’s presentation is an ongoing effort on Beacon Hill to pass legislation enacting a single-payer system in the state. A chief sponsor of one of those bills, Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, who was also one of the four panel speakers, said about one-fourth of legislators support it.

Eldridge and the other panel members – UMass Amherst economics professor Gerald Friedman, business owner Alex Robbins, and Ben Day, executive director of single-payer advocacy group Mass-Care – said it will take a coordinated grassroots effort to build enough support for a single-payer system even in Massachusetts, which broke new ground for states by making health insurance mandatory for residents in 2006.

The panel said that while the state’s reform and the subsequent passage of federal health care reform a year ago expanded access to health care, it hasn’t made it more affordable.

“Now we’re looking at phase two,” said Rep. Tom Sannicandro, D-Ashland, the moderator of last night’s forum, which he said was intended to “get the discussion out there” on single-payer health care.

Panel members said the single-payer system, already adopted by many developed nations around the world, makes health care more affordable by reducing the amount of administrative work that bogs down America’s existing hybrid public, private system. By having a single payer like the government responsible for all health coverage costs, physicians will be able to focus more on care, and patients won’t have to be stressed by the process of dealing with an insurance company, they said.

Friedman said he believes a switch to single payer could save as much as $8 billion in health care costs in the state, and lower the average per person cost from $7,000 to $6,000.

“The money’s there on the street, waiting for us to pick it up,” he said.

Robbins, who owns William Henry Furniture in Cambridge with his wife, said a single-payer system could spare small companies like his from the annual squeeze of rapidly rising employee health care costs.

“We’re paying twice as much for health care than 10 years ago, but the coverage is half of what it used to be,” he said.

One audience member, Paul Pietro of Southborough, who said he works at Mid-State Insurance, said the single-payer system ultimately won’t do anything to control costs, though, as long as health care providers and doctors continue to drive the current system of delivery of care. Mid-State is an insurance broker from Worcester.

“I don’t see that happening at all,” Pietro said. “If you had single payer, you’d be rationing, and the quality of care is going to come down significantly.”

Some other questions posed to the panel by audience members also insinuated that a move to single care ultimately would only replace premiums with a tax bill from the government.

After the presentation, though, some audience members said they’re ready for a change. Mel Warshaw of Framingham said last night’s show of support for the measure could be a step in that direction.

“It tells me that there’s a movement in Massachusetts to do this,” he said. “I’m very much in support of it.”

Boston Globe editorializes in favor of  Jamie’s bill, the Sustainable Water Resources Act.

July 14, 2011

THANKS TO abundant levels of annual rainfall, Massachusetts doesn’t have to drain the brook trout’s habitat in the Westfield River to supply clean drinking water to families in Springfield. But because the Commonwealth lacks specific standards for minimum water levels, human activity still causes the Westfield, Sudbury, Neponset, Jones and other rivers to shrink or even dry up around August each year. The problem is disruptive for boaters, swimmers, and fishermen – not to mention the tourism industries they support. And for fish and other aquatic wildlife, low water levels can be deadly: They intensify the impacts of pollution, spur algae growth, and lead to oxygen-poor warmer water.

The state can begin to address the problem today, when the Legislature’s Environment Committee holds a hearing on the Sustainable Water Resources Act. Hopefully, the hearing will spur the Legislature to pass the bill. More than 1 in 10 small rivers and tributaries in Massachusetts suffers from unnecessarily low water flow, even though the state is home to abundant alternative resources for water users, like the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s Quabbin Reservoir. The problem starts with municipalities and property owners who extract too much water from local watersheds without understanding the impact they are having on natural ecosystems.

If approved, the law would require the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Fish and Game to define the amount of water rivers need to support aquatic life, known as streamflow standards. The standards would be used to help residents and municipalities determine how much water they can safely extract from rivers, streams, and wells. They would also help water users identify when they should tap into other sources, like the Quabbin Reservoir.

Today’s hearing comes as the Patrick administration, environmentalists, farm groups, and others are all working to steer the state’s water policy toward more sustainable practices. So there’s an opportunity for policy makers to balance the needs of businesses and communities with those of the environment. Passing the Sustainable Water Resources Act would be a good first step.