S. B. 371

COALITION OF CONNECTICUT SPORTSMEN P.O. Box 2506, Hartford, CT 06146, (203) 245-8076

www.ctsportsmen.com  

Testimony presented to the Environment Committee (3/1/02) 

IN SUPPORT of  (RAISED) ENVIRONMENT  S. B. 371, AN ACT CONCERNING UNREDEEMED MOTOR BOAT FUEL TAX REVENUES. 

By Robert T. Crook, Director

We strongly support the transfer of ALL motorboat fuel taxes from the DOT Roads & Bridges Fund to the Conservation Fund. Simply put, boats do not use roads and bridges. As a user fee the tax should go to the appropriate users – fishermen and boaters.

Many of us have worked hard to gain the current $3 million currently appropriated. It is traumatic to see the Governor’s bill S.B. 30, AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN TRANSFERS TO THE CONSERVATION FUND, attempting to reduce motorboat fuel tax allocation to the Conservation Fund by $1 million and another $1 million from the gross earnings on sales of petroleum products, appropriated for FY 2002.  Loss of these funds will have a severe impact on current DEP fisheries programs. Note that virtually all Conservation Fund revenue is user fees and dedicated funding. As a consequence, when applied to positions only 60% is usable after deleting personnel fringe benefits. The Conservation Fund is in serious trouble due to inflationary costs, about to run deficits, and with the proposed cuts and without hoped-for increases, program reductions/eliminations and personnel lay-offs are probable.

We are also concerned with the current law which inappropriately allocates major amounts mainly to fisheries, with a miniscule amount to boating ($250,000) – which is the use basis for the tax revenue. Other fund transfers from the account to issues, although necessary (UConn LI Sound Councils, Lobster Economic Impact Study), should be funded through other means.

We would also like to see included in this bill collection of Interest on the Boating Fund and applied to boating activities. Most dedicated funds collect interest, and we see no legitimate reason why the Boating Fund interest should accrue to the General Fund. Interest would generate approximately $200,000 –$300,000.

If all these user fees were returned to user activities, it would not equal the Annual rip-off of $4-5 million from the Conservation Fund to the General Fund initiated in 1992 and continued since. Little General Funding is provided DEP for Natural Resources/Parks when one considers the rip-off. In effect, we get our own money back and effectively users, not the pubic, pay for almost all environmental programs/personnel.

This bill is again a stopgap measure, but without it DEP is in Serious Trouble.

We urge SUPPORT.