Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting And Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local implementers say permitting delays and limited staffing slow HAB mitigation projects
Summary
Soil and water districts, watershed alliances and municipal managers told the Senate committee that state permitting delays, limited district staffing and competition for grant dollars are slowing on‑the‑ground projects to reduce nutrient runoff and control HABs.
Local implementers told senators that state permitting timelines and capacity limits are hindering projects meant to reduce nutrients that fuel harmful algal blooms.
Blanche Hurlbut, executive director of the New York Association of Conservation Districts, said permitting, funding and staffing are the principal constraints facing county soil and water conservation districts. "Permitting is still the biggest challenge districts face," Hurlbut testified, and she urged streamlining the review process so field projects can be completed inside funding windows.
Christy Lamont, program coordinator for the Finger Lakes‑Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance (FLOPA), told the committee that monitoring, homeowner outreach, septic inspections and culvert replacements are among the projects partners fund, but that small per‑county allocations and bureaucratic delays limit what can be done. She said FLOPA's recent annual appropriation equates to about $137,000 per county and that the organization leverages those funds with county, federal and private funds.
Local managers and lake associations gave examples of projects stalled for a year or more awaiting DEC permits, which raises costs and reduces the number of projects accomplished in a field season. "We have a project that's a simple stream crossing... 2 years now in the permit process," a conservation district representative said.
Officials asked the Legislature to sustain and expand funding for soil and water districts and to examine permit timing and general‑permit implementation so smaller projects are not forced into lengthy individual reviews.
Why it matters: On‑the‑ground best management practices—cover crops, vegetated buffers, septic replacements and stormwater retrofits—require timely permitting and local staffing to be effective and to be completed in grant windows. Multiple witnesses said the regionally distributed funding model works but is underresourced relative to need.
Funding context: FLOPA said its 2025 appropriation was $3.5 million split among 25 counties and that it requested $5 million in the 2025‑26 budget. Other witnesses noted recent statewide allocations including $42 million for water quality work in the Finger Lakes and broader Clean Water Infrastructure Act funds for sewage and stormwater projects.
Direct quote: "Most of the problem is the DEC permitting process," one district manager said on the record.
