Wednesday, 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