New York lawmakers are aiming to improve water quality across the state with a new task force.
The initiative, named Assembly Minority Task Force on Water Quality, was formed to “address critical issues impacting our public water supply systems including, but not limited to, aging infrastructure and emerging contaminants,” according a spokesperson.
The Suffolk County Water Authority on Monday proposed installing more treatment systems to remove the chemical 1,4-dioxane from drinking water, with potential capital costs of at least $75 million, officials said.
SCWA officials told Suffolk County legislators they were planning to install 31 new advanced treatment systems at sites where levels of the likely carcinogen are higher than a proposed state limit.
Jill Jedlicka, executive director of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, is concerned that the repeal of clean water regulations will hurt smaller waterways such as Cayuga Creek. (Sharon Cantillon/Buffalo News)
By Jerry Zremski
Published 12:10 p.m. September 23, 2019|Updated 47 minutes ago
·
Gazing at Cayuga Creek in Lancaster, Jill Jedlicka sees a tributary that could return pollution to the Buffalo River – all because the Trump administration recently decided to roll back regulations aimed at protecting the nation's smaller waterways.
"It's a systematic, disassembling of the tools and the resources and the laws that are on the books to help us protect our water quality," Jedlicka, executive director of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, said of Trump's effort.
But on the Wyoming County farm where the Buffalo River starts, Pat McCormick couldn't be happier that Trump's Environmental Protection Agency recently repealed Obama-era regulations that extended federal pollution controls to small streams as well as water bodies that come and go with the seasons.
"They were trying to regulate basically every inch of our ground," McCormick said.
That stark difference of opinion over the nation's main clean-water law will now likely be fought in the courts.
In the meantime, though, Trump's decision inflamed passions over a set of regulations that have, for years, served as a flashpoint in the nation's ever-widening urban-rural divide.
For proof, just compare and contrast the comments of Buffalo's congressman and the president who's most beloved in rural America.
Rep. Brian Higgins, a Democrat, said Trump is rolling back regulations that aim to control "the existential threat to the viability of Lake Erie and Great Lakes – and that is farming and other activities."
But Trump said the issue is much simpler than that.
"Government will no longer try to micromanage every rain puddle and every drainage ditch on private land," the president said.
Then-President Barack Obama and his aides said they were simply doing a common-sense thing when they broadened the definition of water bodies protected under the federal Clean Water Act.
“The only people with reason to oppose the rule are polluters who threaten our clean water,” senior White House adviser Brian Deese told reporters during a conference call back in 2015.
Obama administration officials said their new rule would end the confusion over which waterways are protected under federal law. So long as a body of water flows into another that's navigable, then it qualifies for federal protection, the new rule said.
But farmers saw the new rule as a burden – and they quickly won plenty of allies in Congress, including Rep. Chris Collins. A Clarence Republican, Collins started protesting the new rule in letters and hearings even before it became finalized. He also co-sponsored legislation that would have repealed Obama's effort.
Not surprisingly, Collins was thrilled when Trump finally overturned the rule.
“The Obama ‘clean water’ rule was nothing more than a giant power grab by the Obama Administration that had real and harmful consequences on America’s hardworking farmers and small business owners,” Collins said in a statement last week.
To hear environmentalists tell it, though, the real and harmful consequences of the rule's repeal will be on the nation's waterways.
And for proof, they point to the western parts of Lake Erie. There, giant algal blooms have appeared summer after summer, creating "dead zones" so deprived of oxygen that the lake's natural inhabitants can't survive there.
Lake Erie algae blooms like this one at a Presque Isle marina could become worse if predictions in the new National Climate Assessment come true. (File photo)
The National Science Foundation blames Lake Erie's algal blooms on farm runoff – exactly what the Obama-era rule was created to control.
"It's everybody's responsibility to protect our water," said Brian Smith, associate executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment in Buffalo. "And these are rules really apply to everyone, including farmers. They need to follow the rules like everybody else."
Only the federal government can ensure that farm runoff from all the Great Lakes states doesn't seep into Lake Erie and create problems there, Smith added.
Jedlicka, of Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, said the Trump administration's move will remove federal protections from upward of 1,000 miles of waterways in the four-county Buffalo River watershed.
And Lauren Rubin, director of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, said Trump's action will create problems far beyond Buffalo.
"This move undermines efforts to restore the Great Lakes, threatens our drinking water, jeopardizes our public health, harms our outdoor recreation economy, and diminishes our quality of life," Rubin said.
Farmers say, though, that their quality of life sank as soon as Obama tried regulating every pond and puddle on their property.
"It's so ridiculous when you come down to it," said Ashur Terwillinger, a Chemung County beef farmer and a persistent critic of the Obama regulations. "Now the way they had that worded, if you have a heavy rainstorm or have melt-off in the spring and there's a puddle of water in a field, that becomes 'waters of the U.S.' and is subject to regulation – which is crazy."
And that's not all. A ditch that a farmer digs that becomes filled with rain could be seen as subject to regulation under the Obama rule. So could a gully on the edge of a farm that only fills with water when the snow melts or when there's a big rainstorm.
McCormick, who owns a 600-cow dairy farm in Java Center, said the definitions in the new rule were so vague that he couldn't tell if a pool of water that formed after a rainstorm, and then seeped into the ground, would be subject to regulation.
He also bristled at the Obama officials' apparent assumption that farmers couldn't be trusted to be good environmental stewards of their own land. He said most now take great care in using fertilizer so that it does not run off into waterways and cause problems downstream – as they must under existing state regulations.
That being the case, Lauren Williams, senior associate director of national affairs at the New York Farm Bureau, indicated environmentalists are exaggerating the impact of Trump's move.
"I think that's probably a bit overstated, that they say that we're not going to have clean water anymore," she said. "You know, in New York State, we regulate how manure is spread, how nutrients are applied."
New York long has been a national leader in environmental regulation. And if anything, Trump's move may make the state crack down even harder on water pollution.
Two bills pending before the State Legislature would extend clean-water protections to smaller streams and wetlands, and environmentalists said Trump's deregulatory efforts might give that state legislation new momentum in Albany next year.
Beyond that, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced earlier this month that his 2020 State of the State address will include a "Revive Mother Nature" initiative.
"The essence of it is: Let's restore habitats but also restore healthy levels of fish and shellfish in our state's waters while protecting wetlands," said Basil Seggos, commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Like Obama's new regulations, Trump's deregulatory effort is likely to be challenged in court, Seggos said. But he said the state isn't going to wait for any court opinions before strengthening its own clean-water protections.
"Washington is backsliding, and for the sake of our state, we’ve chosen to lead the nation," he said.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has “ordered” the town of Brookhaven to take immediate steps to address landfill-related odor issues that have affected communities near the facility. Under the terms of a new consent order with DEC the town is required to evaluate odor-producing conditions and take aggressive corrective measures that will prevent odors in the future, enhance community air monitoring, further improve landfill gas collection, and invest $150,000 in an Environmental Benefit Project. The order also includes a $178,000 suspended penalty, payable to DEC if the town does not fulfill the terms of the enforcement action.
A discussion of a proposed wind farm in Lake Erie took center stage in the Erie County Legislature chamber on Thursday. The request was made by legislators Lynne Dixon and John Mills, both of whom oppose the installation of wind turbines off the shore of the lake in the Town of Evans.
County Legislators oppose building wind farms in Lake Erie
Earlier in the day, in front of the Rath Building, environmental groups voiced their support of the wind farm. Citizens Campaign for the Environment Executive Director Brian Smith said the Great Lakes have suffered from previous energy choices, particularly from fossil fuels.
“Wind power creates zero emissions at the point of production, helps to fight climate change,” he said. “And ultimately can create numerous jobs for our community.”
Erie County Fisheries Advisory Board member Rich Davenport said much and more has been done to repair the damage done to the lake in decades past.
“Over the last 50 years, with the billions of dollars spent, and the efforts from conservationists, environmentalists, the New York State DEC and the EPA has turned this lake around 180 degrees,” he said. “From a dead lake in 1970, to perhaps the greatest fresh water fishery and healthiest of the lakes on the planet today.”
Environmentalist groups standing outside Rath building in support of the wind farms.
Credit Thomas O'Neil-White
Davenport said the power generated by the turbines would only be intermittent because of the intermittent nature of wind.
Both sides stressed the environmental pros and cons of the turbines, yet there was no formal vote on the matter. A return date has yet to be specified.
Republicans Lynne Dixon and John Mills have submitted a resolution to the Erie Co. Legislature to BAN all wind turbine projects either in Lake Erie or along the shores of Lake Erie in Erie County. Diamond Energy has been doing some exploratory meetings, etc. to determine if they want to propose a wind turbine project off the shores of Erie County. There is no official project yet.
SOURCE:
http://liherald.com/fivetowns/stories/five-towners-are-paying-a-lot-for-dirty-water,117611
Posted August 29, 2019
Water discoloration adds to the frustration of paying a high water bill every month, Inwood resident Nathan Wein said.
MOST EXPENSIVE WATER DISTRICTS ON LONG ISLAND
1. New York American Water Service Area 2 (North Shore-Sea Cliff): $1,124.52 per year
2. Shelter Island Heights: $1,090
3. New York American Water Service Area 1: $936.12
4. East Williston: $814.80
5. City of Long Beach: $765.78
6. New York American Water Service Area 2 (Merrick): $719.28
Source: Citizens Campaign for the Environment
For the past two years, Inwood resident Nathan Wein said, his monthly water bill has been steadily in-creasing, despite his use of what he described as an “average amount” of water — his household of three uses roughly 23,000 gallons per month.
Wein, who grew up in the Five Towns, said that when he bought his Inwood house in 2017, he paid roughly $50 per month for water. His most recent water bill was $231. “It’s pretty shocking to me how much my bill has gone up the past two years,” said Wein, who is aiming to become more vocal as the Republican candidate for the seat in the Nassau County Legislature representing the 3rd District, which includes Inwood. “It already is expensive enough to live in this area, and now the water bill has become another big monthly expense.”
Wein’s experience is similar to those of many New York American Watercustomers on the South Shore, who have seen a sharp rise in their water bills over the past two years. The increases have been attributed in part to the implementation of “conservation” rates intended to encourage homeowners to use less water.
In 2017, the state Public Service Commission approved NYAW’s request for a four-year phase-in of the new rate structure, and last year homeowners began noticing higher bills — in some cases, double what they had paid the year before for similar water use, according to previous Herald reporting.
For customers in NYAW’s Service Area 1, which includes the Five Towns, the hikes were especially pronounced because of service costs added to their bills, which at a hearing last August were revealed to be the result of infrastructure upgrades, such as the construction of iron-removal plants and maintenance. And because NYAW is a private company, the cost of property taxes it pays on its facilities is also passed on to customers.
Residents are also frustrated about the quality of their water. In the past, NYAW has held community forums in the Five Towns that have focused on discolored water. Utility officials have said it is caused by iron buildup in water pipes. “Most of the water pipes in the Five Towns area were built before 1952,” NYAW Vice President of Operations Richard Kern said at a forum on June 26. “The older pipes tend to get iron buildup which sticks to the wall of the pipe. The buildup then gets reactive and breaks loose, causing the discoloration.”
Wein, who attended that forum, said he wanted to see more of an effort from NYAW to solve the problem. He noted that the water quality has been “sporadic” in recent months. “One week, the water will be clear, and the following week, the water will be brown,” he said. “It’s frustrating, to say the least.” The utility’s latest work in the Five Towns began in June, when it installed a new water main along Hewlett Parkway, Westervelt Place and Wheatley Street in Hewlett. The project took roughly six weeks.
Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a Farmingdale-based advocacy group, confirmed in an Aug. 14 report that NYAW customers on Long Island typically pay more than those who get water from publicly owned and operated utilities.
The report, which compared the average annual cost of water in each of Long Island’s 48 water districts, determined that customers in Service Area 1 pay the third-highest rates on Long Island, roughly $936 per year. Only residents of NYAW’s North Shore-Sea Cliff service area and the Village of Shelter Island pay more annually, $1,125 and $1,090, respectively.
Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, attributed the higher costs to property taxes as well as NYAW’s obligation to maximize its shareholders’ profits. “People don’t understand that just because water is inexpensive doesn’t mean it’s not valuable,” Esposito said. “To get people to understand the true cost of water, the total cost needs to be in the bill.”
Esposito said her team encountered wide discrepancies in how residents are billed, with different metrics — such as cubic feet and cubic meters — used to measure water, as well as differing billing periods. Additionally, some districts include service costs in homeowners’ or business owner’s property tax bills, while others include them in their water bills.
NYAW acknowledged that the added expenses passed on to home and business owners are due to its status as a private utility, but maintained that it provides some of the best service in the area. “New York American Water is aware of the inequity of the tax system, which places a burden on New York American Water customers while all other Long Islanders are exempted,” the company’s president, Lynda DiMenna, said in a statement. “For our Service Area 1 customers, taxes make up 33 percent of their bill. We will continue to work with elected officials to right this wrong for the benefit of our customers. Furthermore, we would caution against comparing rates between public and private water systems, as there are significant differences between the two in terms of taxes, rate structures and investments.”
SOURCE:
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/toxic-algae-concerns-long-island-communities
NEW YORK (FOX 5 NY) - Lake Agawam acts as a backyard backdrop for Southampton resident Joyce Giuffra. It was one of the reasons why she chose this Hamptons homemore than a decade ago but blue-green algae and growing pollution has caused her and her family nothing but headaches.
"It's disgusting, toxic," she said. "It's a hazard."
You can look but don't swim, fish or boat. Environmentalists say the lake's neon green color.
Attempts to clean up the 60-acre lake haven't prevented these major alga-blooms. Now new leadership in the Village of Southampton will give it another try.
It's formed the Lake Agawam Conservancy- a nonprofit group to protect and preserve the water body.
"We already raised $300,000," said Village of Southampton Mayor Jesse Warren. "Our goal is, by the end of the month, in two weeks to raise over half a million dollars we want to use the money to clean the lake and do public-private partnerships."
Aerial photos taken by lifelong Southampton resident Tim Corwin show the damage. He says something desperately needs to be done.
"If the winds blowing and you can smell the lake you're breathing spores and it could be dangerous to human health," he said.
Experts say blue-green algae are fed by nitrogen from septic tanks and cesspools as well as fertilizers running into the lake from stormwater. The algae attack the liver and are toxic to wildlife, pets, and people.
"Don't use fertilizer, pick up your pet waste and keep a natural buffer around your property to filter out the stormwater so the contents aren't traveling down to the lake," said Adrienne Esposito with Citizens Campaign for the Environment.
Village officials also encourage residents to apply for large grants through town and county programs to replace antiquated septic systems.
SOURCE:
https://patch.com/new-york/glencove/glen-head-town-hall-planned-over-new-york-american-water
GLEN HEAD, NY — A town hall meeting is planned this week in Glen Head where members of the community can ask questions about efforts to replace New York American Water.
The meeting, organized by local civic groups, is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the auditorium of North Shore High School, located near Glen Cove Avenue and Plymouth Drive South.
Several area lawmakers are expected to attend, George Pombar, of the Glen Head Glenwood Landing Civic Council, wrote in a Facebook post. He did not name the lawmakers.
"This Town Hall meeting is solely dedicated to answer questions from our community on the progress being made on seeking Public Municipal water for our community," the organization wrote.
The civic council oversees nine local civic groups dedicated to serving the needs of residents in Glen Head and Glenwood Landing towns. The organization has said the meeting would not be about speeches. The goal is to inform the community on what's happening where things stand on moving away from New York American Water.
In June, the council said a feasibility study — a required step for residents to seek local municipalities to become the new water supplier — would be conducted "shortly." The ultimate goal is to find a water provider at a "reasonable" price.
The meeting comes two weeks after a comprehensive analysis conducted by the Citizens Campaign for the Environment showed that New York American Water Customers pay more than anyone else on Long Island.
A North Shore-Sea Cliff family of four who use the EPA average of 10,000 gallons of water per month pays about $1,124 a year for water. In contrast, if the same family got their water from the city of Glen Cove, they'd expect to pay about $283 a year for water.
"NY American Water rates are confusing, and they have some of the most expensive water rates on Long Island," the authors of the analysis said. "All drinking water on Long Island needs to be controlled by public municipalities and priced fairly for all consumers."
Patch has reached out to the council and the water company and will update when we hear back.
SOURCE:
https://patch.com/new-york/patchogue/icymi-heres-how-much-patchogue-residents-pay-water
PATCHOGUE, NY — A new, in-depth analysis shows just how much Patchogue residents really pay for water. The Citizens Campaign for the Environment unveiled its comprehensive study on Tuesday.
Patchogue, like 80 percent of the county, gets its water from the Suffolk County Water Authority, which services 1.2 million people. Here's the breakdown for the Suffolk County Water Authority:
Estimated cost for first 1,000 gallons of water: $2.028
Billing cycle: Quarterly
Estimated cost per billing cycle: $88.75 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)
Estimated cost per year: $355 (includes rates, taxes and service fees)
Fee structure:
· Tier 1: $2.028/1,000 gallon for first 78,540 gallons
· Tier 2: $2.34/1,000 gallon after first 78,540 gallons
· Service fee per quarter: $27.91
Click here to read the full story.
Since moving to Valley Stream in late 2001, Dominick Riccardi said, his water use habits have remained largely the same.
He has long been frugal with electricity, gas and water, particularly when watering his lawn in the summer, Riccardi said. But in the past two years, he has seen spikes in his New York American Water bill — spikes that he said are “wrong on so many levels.”
His experience has been similar to that of many NYAW customers on the South Shore, where homeowners have seen a sharp rise in their water bills over the past two years. Some of the added costs have been attributed to the implementation of “conservation” rates intended to encourage homeowners to use less water.
In 2017, the state, through the Public Service Commission, approved the utility’s request for a four-year phase-inof the new conservation rate structure, and in 2018, homeowners began noticing higher bills, in some cases double what they had paid the previous year for similar water use, according to previous Herald reporting.
For customers in the utility’s Service Area 1, which encompasses Valley Stream, the hikes were especially pronounced due to service costs added to their bills, which in an August 2018 hearing were revealed to be the result of infrastructure up-grades such as the construction of iron-removal plants and maintenance, whose costs were passed on to customers. Additionally, because New York American Water is a private company, the expense of property taxes it pays on its facilities is also passed on to customers.
Now, it’s official: New York American Water customers on Long Island typically pay more than those who get water from publicly owned and operated utilities, according to an Aug. 14 report by the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, a Farmingdale-based advocacy group.
The report, which looked at the average annual cost of water for residents living in each of Long Island’s 48 water districts, revealed that customers in NYAW Service Area 1 paid the third-highest water rates on Long Island, spending, on average, roughly $936 per year.
Only residents living in NYAW’s North Shore-Sea Cliff service area and in the Village of Shelter Island paid more, around $1,125 and $1,090, respectively.
Meanwhile, residents of water districts neighboring Valley Stream, such as the Franklin Square Water District, for example, pay about $498 annually, and in the Village of Rockville Centre, which operates its own water utility, $457.
Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, attributed the higher costs to property taxes as well as New York American Water’s obligations to shareholder profits.
“Water should not be a money-making venture,” Esposito said, noting that regardless of the agency, all water on Long Island comes from the same aquifer. She supports a public takeover of NYAW, the only privately run water utility on the Island.
In Valley Stream, that prospect is unlikely in the near future, with village officials saying the cost would likely be in the millions of dollars.
“At this time, it looks like an onerous burden on our taxpayers,” Mayor Ed Fare said.
A confusing constellation of standards
While compiling her group’s report, Esposito said her team encountered wide discrepancies in how water utilities and districts bill residents, with different metrics — such as cubic feet and cubic meters — used to measure water, as well as differing lengths of billing periods. Additionally, some districts include service costs in the homeowner’s or business owner’s property-tax bills, while others include them in their water bills.
This, Esposito said, makes comparing bills difficult and obscures the actual cost of water, creating obstacles to conservation efforts.
“People don’t understand that just because water is inexpensive doesn’t mean it’s not valuable,” she said. “To get people to understand the true cost of water, the total cost needs to be in the bill.”
The issue of differing billing standards will be at least partially addressed in January, according to State Sen. Todd Kaminsky, when a state law takes effect requiring all water utility bills to measure use in gallons and to include monthly use comparisons so customers can see exactly how much water they are using.
Kaminsky said he was open to the idea of a public takeover of New York American Water, but acknowledged that it would be incumbent on local municipalities such as villages and towns to make that decision. “If some want to take that approach,” he said, “we’d be more than happy to listen.”
New York American Water acknowledged the added expenses passed on to home and business owners due to its status as a private utility, but maintained that it provides some of the best service in the area.
“New York American Water is aware of the inequity of the tax system, which places a burden on New York American Water customers while all other Long Islanders are exempted,” NYAW President Lynda DiMenna said in a statement. “For our Service Area 1 customers, taxes make up 33 percent of their bill. We will continue to work with elected officials to right this wrong for the benefit of our customers. Furthermore, we would caution against comparing rates between public and private water systems, as there are significant differences between the two in terms of taxes, rate structures and investments.”
SOURCE:
California could force some manufacturers to change their formulas for dishwashing liquids, laundry detergents, and face scrubs if they contain certain levels of a probable carcinogen, 1,4-dioxane.
A component of that chemical helps get clothes clean in cold water and provides the bubbles consumers expect from their bathroom soap.
The state Department of Toxic Substances Control is considering adding the man-made solvent to the list of chemicals regulated under its Safer Consumer Products regulations. If the state takes that step, manufacturers would have to research safer chemical alternatives when concentrations of 1,4-dioxane exceed a set threshold.
During a public meeting Aug. 21 in Sacramento, manufacturers and industry groups said the chemical—a byproduct of normal manufacturing processes—is difficult to remove and measure in finished products.
“The goal is always to get to the lowest level possible,” said Kathleen Stanton, a senior director with American Cleaning Institute, an industry group that represents 140 companies like Dow Chemical Co., DuPont Nutrition & Biosciences, L’Oreal USA, and Unilever.
“It is not an intentionally-added ingredient nor is it added as a raw material,” she said.
The federal government doesn’t regulate 1,4-dioxane in products or drinking water.
The extent of its presence in products is hard to quantify because it is considered a byproduct, not an ingredient added on purpose, so it isn’t listed on product labels. DTSC is doing its own product testing to get a sense of how much of the chemical is in common household products.
“It can be pretty tough to know what products it is in,” said Anne-Cooper Doherty, a senior environmental scientist with the state agency.
A survey of water suppliers in California found 1,4-dioxane in areas in Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, and others serving nearly half of the state’s population.
It’s hard to extract from water supplies and conventional waste water treatment plants don’t remove it either. With the state increasing its reliance on recycled water, the issue could become more serious, Doherty said.
“It’s more about the combined use exposure and drinking water consumers that we’re concerned about,” she said.
If the state does establish a threshold, it would take effect no earlier than 2022. One part per million has been discussed but is not final.
In New York, legislation awaiting the governor’s signature would require 1,4-dioxane levels below 1 parts per million in personal care and cleaning products, and 10 parts per million in cosmetics, by the end of 2023.
Last year, the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, which operates in New York and Connecticut, tested consumer products and issued a report on the lab results. A body wash from Victoria’s Secret had the highest concentration of the chemical, at 17 parts per million, Executive Director Adrienne Esposito said.
Canberra Corp., a Toledo, Ohio-based manufacturer of green cleaning chemicals, said replacing 1,4-dioxane would be technically difficult and costly but the company is focused on green chemistry and sustainability, said Roger McFadden, its vice president of sustainability and innovation.
“I don’t think anyone wants to have 1,4-dioxane in its products,” he said. “But there’s the practicability of that that we need to address as well.”
The supply chain can also be a problem, according to Seventh Generation Sustainability & Authenticity Director Martin Wolf. Many companies buy surfactants, which contain 1,4-dioxane, from outside manufacturers to use in their products.
When Seventh Generation sought to lower concentrations of the chemical in its products, the Vermont company found cross-contamination from outside facilities that complicated efforts, Wolf said.
The recently enacted state law phasing out single-use plastic shopping bags is frustrating some Connecticut consumers because it contains a loophole that allows retailers to charge for the paper kind.
A majority of grocery stores and other retailers now make shoppers pay 10 cents for each paper bag, a practice that didn’t exist prior to Aug. 1. State law now mandates retailers charge customers 10 cents for every single-use plastic shopping bag until July 1 2021, when they no longer will be available.
Between now and July 2021, proceeds from the plastic bag purchase will going into the state’s coffers. But money from purchasing the paper bags is being pocketed by retailers, a practice that irks some Connecticut consumers.
David Bednarz, a spokesman for Gov. Ned Lamont, said the plastic shopping bag ban “did not change anything related to paper bags.”
“If a business is charging their customers for paper bags, that was a decision the individual businesses decided to make on their own,” Bednarz said.
Louis Burch, Connecticut program director of the Hamden-based Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said the idea behind charging for paper bags is to try to change consumer behavior. The organization was one of leading environmental groups that lobbied for the plastic bag ban.
The fact that the loophole exists is reflective of the fact that some Connecticut lawmakers had varying levels of comfort with the legislation as the plastic bag ban made its way through the state legislature, according to Burch.
“We’re not overly concerned with where the where the money goes,” he said. “While it’s true that paper bags are recyclable, we’re in the midst of a crisis in Connecticut because we’re not recycling very much. The cost of recycling is going out of control and paper bags weigh more than plastic, so it’s going to end up costing communities a whole lot more.”
Cheshire resident Donna Lockwood said charging for paper bags “is disgusting.”
“I don’t think any store should charge for paper,” Lockwood said. “I may choose to go elsewhere just for the principal of it.”
Finding stores, particularly large retail chains, that don’t charge for paper bags requires a little work. Among the large retailers that aren’t charging for paper bags are the CVS pharmacy chain and Trader Joe’s grocery stores.
Retailers that charge for paper bags are taking advantage of the situation in Connecticut, said Nels Nelson. The Cheshire resident said the private golf club he works at as clubhouse manager recently switched from plastic straws to those made of paper.
“I don’t charge for them: It is called price of doing business,” Nelson said. “Imagine a coffee shop saying $2.50 for a cup of coffee, but now cream and sugar are extra.”
Lynda Pryzbyski is a Wallingford resident who along with her husband, Alan, owns Bella Gusta. The West Hartford specialty retailer sells specialty cooking oils and vinegars
“I pay between 40 to 50 cents per paper bag I buy,” Pryzbyski said. “If I ever tried to charge even 10 cents for a bag, my customers wouldn’t come any more. Yet the large chain stores get away with it.”
Large retailers contacted by Hearst Connecticut Media for this story said charging customers for paper bags is not designed to boost profits.
Richard Bossie, Big Y’s senior vice president of operations and customer experience, said the 10-cent per bag charge “is basically a break even for us.”
“We’re not big fans of paper bags,” Bossie said. “We’d kind of like to be out of the paper bag business entirely.”
Big Y has been complying with single-use plastic bag bans in several Massachusetts communities since 2014, he said. And so when the Connecticut ban was signed into law, Bossie said the chain moved up its 2020 timeline to eliminate single-use plastic bags at checkouts in all of its locations in order to streamline operations and to do its part to support sustainability.
Stew Leonard Jr., whose chain of seven grocery stores includes Connecticut locations in Norwalk, Danbury and Newington, said his company actually loses money even with the 10 cents per paper bag it now charges. The grocery chain pays 14 cents for every paper bag it buys, Leonard said.
Karen O’Shea, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey-based Wakefern Food Corp., the retailers’ cooperative group of supermarkets that oversees the ShopRite chain, said paper bags are an alternative for customers who are concerned with environmental sustainability.
“Stores are charging the 10 cents on paper bags to cover the higher costs of producing more paper bags,” she said. “ShopRite is committed to sustainability and we encourage all our customers to ‘be the change’ and bring their own reusable bags to the store each time they grocery shop. That is our main message and we are already seeing many people do just that in the weeks since the new law went into effect.”
Burt Flickinger, managing director of New York City-based Strategic Resource Group, said research done by Social Clique, an independant research firm, found that 90 percent of consumers surveyed in southern New England want food retailers in the region to be environmentally responsible. Researchers also found that 30 percent of shoppers in the region in the 19- to 59-year-old age group would switch to a retailer they believe to be environmentally conscious.
Trader Joe’s offered plastic grocery bags in its stores at one time. But at the end of last year, the California-based chain announced a broad initiative to eliminate the amount of plastic waste its stores produces.
“While most of the plastic in our packaging has the highest recyclability acceptance rate in the U.S., reducing the amount of plastic packaging in our stores is another important focus of our sustainability,” company officials said in a written statement announcing the initiative.
The focus of the Trader Joe’s initiative includes:
Reducing and removing packaging whenever possible.
Choosing packaging that can be realistically recycled.
Providing information to customers that increases understanding of how best to recycle or dispose of packaging.
Replacing plastic produce bags with biodegradable and compostable produce bags.
Some Connecticut shoppers, though, are more accepting of retailers charging for paper bags.
“The cost of paper bags from my understanding is much higher than the plastic bags,” said Mary Moynihan Underwood of Cheshire. “So if stores are going to need to have more available, the cost is going to have to come from somewhere. This will definitely encourage me to have my reusable bags all the time.”
Bryan Ciaburri of Plainville said he’d consider shopping at a retailer that charges for paper bags if the money “was being used for an organization like helping children with cancer.”
“If they haven’t been charging all these years for paper bags, then why start?” Ciaburri said. “How much more money do I have to just give away to live?”
Retailing experts also questioned the wisdom in charging for paper bags.
“I can’t understand why they would charge for paper bags, because it’s going to tick people off,” said David Cadden, professor emeritus at Quinnipiac University’s School of Business. “The paper bags are much suited to stack items in.”
Flickinger said data indicates that consumers in New England already pay some of the highest costs in the country for retail purchases.
“It could create a case of sticker shock for some consumers,” Flickinger said. “It’s definitely going to hurt all retailers in the supermarket sector.”
Warehouse club retailers such as BJ’s Wholesale Club and Costco will be the likely beneficiaries of consumer loyalties that shift as a result of charging for paper bags, he said.
“It’s going to be a bonanza for them,” Flickinger said.
